London Assembly Scrutiny Committee Investigation into rail crowding by ert634

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 126

									London Assembly Scrutiny Committee:
Investigation into rail crowding




                                      1
Contents



•   Which rail routes in London are most crowded?
•   What is the passenger experience for Londoners using rail
    services to commute into and around London?
•   How can a detailed understanding of the levels of
    overcrowding inform development of the Mayor’s Transport
    Strategy?
•   How effectively is overcrowding being tackled by the
    Government and the TOCs, and what more can be done




                                                                2
The map shows 2006 crowding in terms of passengers
standing per metre of standing space for inner suburban
rail services




                                                          3
This is the equivalent map for ‘outer suburban’ rail services




                                                                4
Given this situation, TfL warmly welcomed the Railways
White Paper and the Crossrail announcements in 2007,
and their emphasis on capacity
•   Flow through of policy from Stern and
    Eddington reports
     – Climate change
     – Agglomeration
•   Recognition of growth pressures in London
    and the South-east, c. +2½% demand per
    year
•   Thameslink and Crossrail approvals – major
    successes
•   Significant capacity increases on most other
    routes into London
•   Flexibility of approach over 30-year period -
    especially given the upside risk on demand
•   Great similarity with TfL’s own Rail 2025
    recommendations


                                                         5
•   Which rail routes in London are most crowded?
•   What is the passenger experience for Londoners using rail
    services to commute into and around London?
•   How can a detailed understanding of the levels of
    overcrowding inform development of the Mayor’s Transport
    Strategy?
•   How effectively is overcrowding being tackled by the
    Government and the TOCs, and what more can be done




                                                                6
       The National Passenger Survey gives a comparable
       measure of how satisfied passengers are in terms of
       getting a seat
          Percentage fairly or very dissatisfied
            40%

            30%
            20%

            10%
              0%
                      c




                                                                    ia
                                                                   rn
                               n




                                                                     d




                                                                   rn
                                                                     s


                                                                  rn
                                                                  nd
                                                                   ct
                   c2




                                                                un
                                 r




                                                                 in
                                                                 gl
                                                                te
                             lte


                                        ne




                                                              he
                                                               te
                                                              la




                                                             ra
                                                            An
                                                           es




                                                            ro




                                                           as
                          hi


                                      on




                                                           id




                                                           ut
                                                         tT
                                                        rg
                                                        W
                          C




                                                        M




                                                       So
                                                        st




                                                       he
                                   lC




                                                      es
                                                      ve


                                                    Ea
                                                    on
                                                     at




                                                    ut
                               it a




                                                   W
                                                   O
                                            re




                                                 So
                                                 nd




                                                 Ex
                            ap




                                               on
                                          tG




                                                 h
                                             Lo




                                              ut
                                              at
                          tC




                                            nd
                                        rs




                                           So
                                            N
                                          Lo
                         rs


                                     Fi
                      Fi




               High levels of congestion recorded contribute to justifying the
               capacity schemes on each of these rail corridors – not least
               London Overground where TfL is investing £1.4 billion in new
               longer trains, a doubled frequency, and new routes

Source: Passenger Focus, National Passenger Survey, spring 2008 wave
                                                                                 7
‘Passengers in excess of capacity’ is another measure
of overcrowding: the graph below shows the proportion
              Trains
                           during Excess of Guideline Capacity
of trains arriving Currently in the morning peak hour which
              Arriving at central London termini between 8am and 9am

are in excess of capacity

                             Blackfriars                                           67%

                               Waterloo                                          62%

                         London Bridge                                       58%

                            Kings Cross                                    55%

                             Paddington                                    53%

         Kings Cross Thameslink (SB)                                   50%

                            Liverpool St                             46%

                          Charing Cross                             43%

                                 Victoria                     31%

                          Cannon Street                    24%

                             Marylebone                 23%

                    Moorgate (GN only)               17%

                           Fenchurch St          10%

                                 Euston 0%




Notes: Crowding measurement is a function of the guideline capacity, which varies significantly according to service
       type (i.e. allowed capacity on a frequently stopping service is greater than that permitted for a commuter service
       with limited stops). Source: PIXC data, SRA 2005                                                                     8
 Office of Rail Regulation data shows passenger experience
 over time

   Percentage of passengers in excess of capacity for both morning and
   evening peaks of London & South East operators

                   3.8
                   3.6
                   3.4
                   3.2
                     3
                   2.8
                   2.6
                   2.4
                   2.2
                     2
                           2001       2002       2003        2004   2005   2006




Source: National Rail yearbooks, Office of Rail Regulation
                                                                                  9
The impact of over-crowding is felt through:

•   Passenger discomfort
•   Unreliability as trains take longer to load and unload at stations
•   Longer journey times to the extent that passengers are left
    behind
•   Loss of wider economic benefits as crowding means:
     – People are less willing to take the most productive jobs in the
       central business districts. Analysis shows that improving access to
       these clusters means that more workers are willing to work there.
       There are benefits to society from this from higher tax revenues
       associated with their higher income
     – Clusters form because it is the more efficient way of working.
       Inadequate transport means that clusters are not as big as they
       would be, efficiencies are less, and the economy less productive




                                                                             10
•   Which rail routes in London are most crowded?
•   What is the passenger experience for Londoners using rail
    services to commute into and around London?
•   How can a detailed understanding of the levels of
    overcrowding inform development of the Mayor’s Transport
    Strategy?
•   How effectively is overcrowding being tackled by the
    Government and the TOCs, and what more can be done




                                                                11
     The development of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy
     requires … (1 of 2)


     •   The definition of a vision and objectives for transport in London
          – This is a purpose of the Direction of Travel document
            (currently being written)

     •   An analysis of London’s transport challenges, as set out in
         Planning for a better London:
          – Continued economic development of London
          – Ensuring the safety and security of Londoners
          – Transport for all Londoners
          – Tackling climate change
          – Providing a better quality of life
          – Olympics and Paralympics



Source: Planning for a better London
                                                                             12
     The development of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy
     requires … (2 of 2)

    •    Forecasts of the future in the context of the past
        Millions                      2000            2007          2026 – low         2026 - high
        Population                      7.2             7.6               8.3              8.6
        Households                      2.9             3.2               3.7              3.9
        Employment                      4.5             4.6                      5.5
        In-commuters                   0.69            0.77              0.87             0.83
        Road freight                   128             156                  Not available

    •    The nature of the specific solutions for each corridor are based on:
          – detailed understanding of the levels of overcrowding now and in the
            future
          – The physical features of the routes, an analysis of different
            engineering solutions, and work to establish the best value option


Source: Drawn from draft Direction of Travel document which contains original
references                                                                                           13
•   Which rail routes in London are most crowded?
•   What is the passenger experience for Londoners using rail
    services to commute into and around London?
•   How can a detailed understanding of the levels of
    overcrowding inform development of the Mayor’s Transport
    Strategy?
•   How effectively is overcrowding being tackled by the
    Government and the TOCs, and what more can be done




                                                                14
  Committed rail enhancements add about a quarter to rail
  capacity
                                     Thameslink
     London Midland                  • 12-car max capability
     • Trains lengthened                                                                 West Anglia
                                     • 24 trains per hour through core                   • 12-car capability Stansted & Cambridge
                                                                                         • 9-car on Enfield & Chingford routes


Chiltern
• Train lengthening up to 7-car                  5                                                             Great Eastern
• Frequency improvements                                   41               23                                 • Additional outer services
                                                                                                               • New XR services
Great Western                                                                                        40
• Train lengthening                   8
• Additional paths Reading                                                                                              C2C / LTS
                                                       Orbital routes
  – P’ton
                                                       • Increased frequency                            14              • 12-car capability
• New XR services
                     129                               • New routes                                                       on all routes
                                                       • 4 car on Overground                                            • Trains lengthened
                                                                                             21
                                             8                  170
South-west                                                                                                  High Speed 1
• 10-car Windsor lines and inner                                                                            • Start services
  suburban capability
                                                                10                           South-east
                                                                                             • Lengthen inner suburban trains in
                                                                                               CST and CX
                                                                                             • Some infrastructure work
                           South London
                           • 10-car inner capability


 Key: % increase in capacity                 20           Source: Capacity from DfT rolling stock plan and London Rail analysis
                                                                                                                                          15
       Network Rail’s strategic business plan shows when
       these should be delivered

                                  North London Railway upgrade
                                                      C2C 12-car Tilbury (now 8-car)
                                      FCC Cambridge 12-car (now 8-car)
                                    FCC Hertford capacity (2 extra trains per hour)
                                                            West Anglia 12-car (now 8-car)
                                             West Anglia 9-car (now 8-car)
                                                                                    Crossrail starts
                   Thameslink; 5
                   more trains thro’    T’link: 16tph, max 12-car       T’ink: 24 tph, max 12-car
                   core                       London Midland more 12-car trains (now 8-car)
                                                    South-West 10-car (now 8-car)
                                    Victoria / London Bridge 10-car (now 8-car)
                                 Southern 12-car East Grinstead (now 8-car)
                                    South Eastern 12-car (now 10-car)
                          South Eastern St Pancras high speed service starts

       2008             2010            2012              2014             2016
                                        Olympics
   KEY          Outer suburban rolling stock
                Inner suburban rolling stock
Source: Network Rail strategic business plan for CP4, October 2007, page 160-1                         16
TfL is extending the rail contribution by upgrading
and extending London Overground
                                    • Extended East London
                                      railway - Highbury &
                                      Islington to Crystal
                                      Palace / West Croydon
                                    • New fleet of longer trains
                                    • 150% more train service
                                    • Working with Network
                                      Rail on upgrade of North
                                      London Railway
                                      infrastructure upgrade
                                    • Successful joint Network
                                      Rail TfL bid for £18.5
                                      million on the Gospel
                                      Oak – Barking line for
                                      freight gauge and
                                      capacity enhancement


                                                                   17
Projected crowding without
HLOS/Crossrail




                             18
        Crowding with HLOS /
        Crossrail schemes




Conclusion: Crowding better than now, and far better
 than a “do nothing” scenario. This is not to say that all
 crowding problems are solved, and there remains a
 challenge of continued economic growth after 2017.
                                                             19
    Underground line upgrades add 25% to its capacity
    as well




Source: T2025 Transport vision for a growing city, Figure 15, page 780
                                                                         20
What more can be done in the short-run?

•   Stakeholders should help ensure timely delivery of new
    capacity, be it DfT, Network Rail, TOC or TfL (Overground and
    Crossrail)
•   East London line extension phase 2b (see next slide)
•   Better interchange can help reduce demand pressure at certain
    pinch points
     – e.g. encouraging interchange at West Hampstead reduces
       crowding on the Victoria line
•   Freight terminals: Series of strategic freight interchanges,
    notably at Barking if rail freight is ever to play a greater role
•   Station travel plans to make stations as accessible as possible




                                                                        21
  Synergies with other projects mean there is a one-off
  opportunity to progress East London Line phase 2 in
  South London
Enables use of additional paths into
Victoria from around south London                Helps deliver the Thameslink programme

                                                         To Dalston
                                                        and Highbury
                                       London
                 Victoria               Bridge


                      Battersea                 South
                      Park                 Bermondsey




                                            e

                                          m
                                           ll




                                           d
                                                                  ELL closure between
          n c am




                                         ad

                                          et




                                        Ry
                                         Hi




                                        oa
                                        ha
                                       re
                                     Ro
                  n
        Ju aph




                                    lR
                                      k




                                    ck
                                     m
              ti o




                                    St




                                                                  2007 and 2009 for phase
                                    ar

                                 ha
                                  th




                                Pe

                                na
                                 m
                                gh
            l
          C




                               or




                              ck
                              en




                             Ca                                   1 gives opportunity to cut
                             Hi




                             ad
                             w




                           Pe
                            D
                          ds




                         Ro
                         am




                           y
                       rr e

                                                                  capital costs of
                       an

                     ph




                      ’s

                    Su
                    W




                                                    To Crystal
                   en




                                                                  constructing phase 2
                   la
                  C




                 ue




                                                    Palace and
               Q




                                                   West Croydon



                                                                                               22
What more can be done in the long-run?

•   TfL is working with DfT, Network Rail and ATOC to define
    longer-term ideas for capacity expansion
•   Some ideas, such as those for four-tracking the West Anglia
    mainline out of Liverpool Street to Broxbourne, Stansted and
    Cambridge, are beginning to have a defined scope already
•   TfL is also reviewing the role of Crossrail line 2
•   TfL believe station capacity issues will also need to be
    addressed at some important locations, for example Clapham
    Junction
•   New long-distance (high speed) lines could release capacity on
    the classic network for freight and regional / local passenger
    trains




                                                                     23
Questions from Jennette Arnold AM

Q1 - Have you undertaken passenger counts on Overground services
regularly, or does TfL rely on statistics on ticket sales provided by
ATOC?

As part of the concession agreement, LOROL is required to undertake
passenger counts for TfL on all London Overground services at least every six
months.

A full count covering weekday, Saturday and Sunday demand across the full
traffic day was undertaken in March 2008, and a further peak count is
currently being carried out. We expect the results from this to be available in
the New Year. This data gives us full details of the on train loads on individual
services between stations, as well as volumes boarding and alighting from
trains at stations.

When the new class 378 trains come into service in early 2009, the counts will
be undertaken automatically using the load weighing system fitted on the
train. This system will provide us with comprehensive train load information
across all services on a daily basis.

At the moment we do not have a full set of passenger counts that allow us to
say what the passenger growth has been over the first year of the concession;
however we will be able to accurately give this figure in the next few months.

Q2a - Users consider the availability of Oyster and putting Overground
on the Tube map as a major push factor boosting demand. What other
factors might apply?

Key factors affecting demand are central London employment and population
growth.

In addition a number of improvements have been introduced on London
Overground since TfL took over management responsibility for the
concession. We believe that the following improvements have contributed to
the increase of demand levels:

•   the availability of staff at all stations during the hours of operation (from the
    first day of operation) has increased the feeling of safety and security;
•   the programme of cleaning and repairing stations would have played a key
    role in improving customers’ perception of the service;
•   the marketing campaign designed to reach out and provide suitable levels
    of information to our passengers and gain new passengers;
•   the increased level of reliability and effectiveness of our services) 94.12%
    PPM score for Period 6 compared with 87.3% at time of takeover;
•   the cleaning of existing trains and the programme of seat removal to
    create more onboard capacity; and
•   the increased frequency of services.

We are currently commissioning research to review existing and potential
passengers’ attitude towards travelling with London Overground.     The
outcome will be compared with the results obtained from similar research
undertaken in November 2007.

In the medium term, we foresee that the opening of new stations and the
opening of the extended East London Line will play a key role in attracting
new demand on the Overground network. In the year following opening (2011)
we expect that 33 million passengers per annum will use the 12 trains per
hour (tph) service.

By 2016, assuming that other key transport schemes such as Crossrail and
Thameslink are in operation, this will have increased to 39 million passengers
per annum.

Although currently unfunded, if built the further extension to Clapham Junction
will also generate more demand, arising from an increase in the service
frequency over the core section from 12tph to 16tph, as well as additional
demand       generated     from         the     connection      at    Clapham.

Services are expected to carry 7.8million passengers per annum in 2011,
increasing to 8.7million in 2016. These trains are not expected to be very
heavily loaded and to provide crowding relief on key parts of the network.

Q2b- What analysis has been undertaken to evaluate the "Oyster effect"
and its impact on overcrowding when it is extended to the rest of
London's rail network by 2009?

Oyster Travelcards are already accepted across London’s national rail
network. Introducing Oyster pay as you go (PAYG) will lead to passengers
switching between existing paper based ticket types to Oyster, which is 30 per
cent faster through the ticket gates. This will involve a straightforward
switching of ticket product, which will not necessarily cause an increase in
demand. However, we would expect there to be some uplift in demand
through the introduction of Oyster products (such as PAYG) and the
attractiveness of these products, although the impact will depend on the
PAYG fares charged by TOCs.

TfL undertook some analysis to look at the impact of Travelcards on LU
demand when they were introduced and this has revealed an increase in
demand of around 1%.


Q3 - Some users have expressed a concern about the effect of latent
/ suppressed demand. Has passenger growth exceeded your (i.e.
TfL's) expectations, which it evidently has, and what do you at TfL and
ATOC think is the reason for this?

Notwithstanding the impact that the current recession is having generally
across all sectors, growth in demand has been strong since the start of the
London Overground concession. As the transfer took place more than a year
ago and due to the timing of the passenger counts we are not able to give an
exact observed figure for observed growth.

Our forecasts for the Overground network predict that passenger boardings in
the AM Peak will increase by 10% between 2001 and 2016, without any
service improvements being made. This is driven by population and
employment growth in London, as well as a range of other factors listed in
response to question 2. The level of overcrowding upon the route is causing
demand to be suppressed, however the improvements that we are making to
the system will allow this suppressed demand to be accommodated and
overcrowding to be reduced to a lower level on the Overground.

Through a strong investment programme, TfL expects to meet the future level
of demand. A number of infrastructure improvements are due to take place
between now and the Olympics to deliver a more reliable, efficient and
frequent passenger service on the London Overground network. There will be
up to 12 trains per hour between Surrey Quays and Dalston Junction, and up
to eight trains per hour between Stratford and Camden Road in the morning
peak. In addition to this, brand new high capacity trains will be introduced on
the London Overground network from early 2009, providing additional
capacity.

The additional trains and increase in service frequency are expected to
increase demand on the existing Overground routes by a further 38% in the
AM Peak Period from that in 2016, with overcrowding not exceeding our target
of a maximum of three passengers standing per metre square of available
standing space. The service enhancements proposed are able to
accommodate current demand, expected growth and any suppressed
demand, and also reduce crowding from the current maximum observed load
on the network of six passengers standing per metre square of available
standing space.

It is worth mentioning that operating our services on a mixed freight and
passenger operation network brings a number of constraints. The number of
trains and their timetable is affected by the mixed operation.
  London Assembly scrutiny
committee: investigation into rail
           crowding

          December 2008




                                     1
Context: Population Trends



                    Population in London trends and forecasts (1971-2026)

                9,000,000

                8,500,000

                8,000,000

Po pula tio n                                                                                  P opulation (LOW GROWTH
                7,500,000                                                                      FORECAS T)
                                                                                               P opulation (HIGH GROWTH
                7,000,000                                                                      FORECAS T)
                                                                                               P opulation (NO FURTHER
                6,500,000                                                                      GROWTH)


                6,000,000
                       70

                             75

                                   80

                                         85

                                               90

                                                     95

                                                           00

                                                                  05

                                                                        10

                                                                              15

                                                                                    20

                                                                                          25
                     19

                            19

                                  19

                                        19

                                              19

                                                    19

                                                          20

                                                                 20

                                                                       20

                                                                             20

                                                                                   20

                                                                                         20
                                                          Year




                                                                                                                          2
Employment Trends


                         Employment in London trends and forecasts (1971-2026)

             4,800,000

             4,600,000


             4,400,000


             4,200,000


             4,000,000                                                                                                Greater London Employment (NO GROWTH
Employment                                                                                                            P REDICTION)
                                                                                                                      Greater London Employment (FORECAS T
             3,800,000                                                                                                P REDICTION)
                                                                                                                      Greater London Employment (1971-2006)
             3,600,000


             3,400,000


             3,200,000

             3,000,000
                                                                                             13
                                                                                                  16
                                                                                                       19
                                                                                                            22
                                                                                                                 25
                    71
                          74
                               77
                                    80
                                         83
                                              86
                                                   89
                                                        92
                                                             95
                                                                  98
                                                                        01
                                                                              04
                                                                                   07
                                                                                        10
                  19
                         19




                                             19
                                                  19
                                                       19
                                                            19
                                                                 19
                                                                      20
                                                                             20
                                                                                  20
                                                                                       20
                                                                                            20
                                                                                                 20
                                                                                                      20
                                                                                                           20
                                                                                                                20
                              19
                                   19
                                        19




                                                                      Year




                                                                                                                                                              3
Real GDP


                 National GDP in real terms (1970-2007)

           300


           250


           200


           150
                                                                                                                                               Index (1970 = 100)

           100


            50


             0
                 1970
                        1972
                               1974
                                      1976
                                             1978
                                                    1980
                                                           1982
                                                                  1984
                                                                         1986
                                                                                1988
                                                                                1990
                                                                                       1992
                                                                                              1994
                                                                                                     1996
                                                                                                            1998
                                                                                                                   2000
                                                                                                                          2002
                                                                                                                                 2004
                                                                                                                                        2006
                                                                                Year




                                                                                                                                                                    4
 Headline Results
 all based on average weekday, 3 hour am peak (except total trips – 24hr)

                                                                            CHANGE       CHANGE
                                                2006    2017    2026    2006-2017        2017-2026
                                                                        abs        %     abs       %
Population (millions)                            7.57    7.94    8.26       0.37   5%     0.31     4%
Employment (millions)                            3.85    4.23    4.59       0.38   10%    0.36     9%
Total Trips (millions per day)                   23.8           26.15                     2.35 10%
PT Capacity
Seat Km (m)                                      46.8    57.3    57.5   10.51      22%    0.17     0%
Total Km (m)                                    130.9   175.1   176.0   44.21      34%    0.95     1%
PT Demand
Boards (millions)                                 2.9     3.2     3.5       0.38   13%    0.27     8%
Pax Km (m)                                       28.4    33.2    36.4       4.78   17%    3.21 10%
Crowding - percentage of crowded Pax
Km (all rail modes)                              60%     43%     49%         -17               6
Congestion                                       0.99    1.14    1.19       0.15   15%    0.05     4%
Average Trip Lengths KM (PT)                     7.30    7.74    7.90       0.44   6%     0.16     2%

                                                                                                        5
 What impact does the Reference Case have?

Crowding            The investment made in the public transport network to 2017 (ie.
the Reference Case network) enables capacity to do better than keep pace with
increased demand resulting from population and employment growth. Crowding
worsens after 2026, but remains below 2006 levels. Severe crowding remains an
issue, particularly on the Underground and DLR in the Central London employment
hubs of the City and Isle of Dogs.
Congestion       The Reference Case provides no increase in highway capacity,
and the investment in public transport does not prompt the mode shift necessary to
keep congestion stable, or indeed to reduce it.
Trip Length       Average trip lengths increase as public transport infrastructure is
improved; there is a 6% increase from 2006 to 2017, and a further increase of 2% to
2026.
Accessibility (Journey Times) Public Transport journey times to improve between
2006 and 2026 to all four of the destinations selected (Bank, Canary Wharf,
Croydon, Heathrow). The improved journey times generally reflect the enhanced
public transport network with the addition of Crossrail showing a notable
improvement in journey times to Canary Wharf from Ealing.


                                                                                        6
Crowding
National Rail Services 2006




                              7
Crowding
National Rail Services 2017 (low)




                                    8
Crowding
National Rail Services 2026 (low)




                                    9
Annex

Meeting with London Rail, 18 December 2008

HLOS2 process
The year 2012 will be significant for the strategic direction of London’s railways.
The Government will be publishing a ‘High Level Output Specification’ (HLOS)
covering the period 2014-2019 and an associated ‘Statement of Funds Available’
(SOFA). For the first time this is likely to cover rail and road. At a minimum, this
specification will define and fund what Government wants in terms of:

   •   Passenger and freight rail capacity,
   •   Performance (train reliability); and
   •   Safety

This sounds a comfortably long way in the future. In fact, however, Government
is beginning to start the process of thinking about how it is going to approach this
given the long lead times on rail projects.

Context and background
HLOS1, announced in July 2007, can be summarised as:
  • Thameslink programme for which funding is committed in full. However the
     project itself will be phased with full scope delivered by December 2015.
     Phase 1 brings a 12-car railway (up from 8 now) from Bedford to Brighton,
     plus 16 trains per hour in the peak through the core section by the end of
     2011, instead of just 7 per hour currently
  • South Eastern platforms lengthened to 12 cars
  • Southern suburban platforms lengthened to 10 cars on some routes
  • South West Train suburban platforms lengthened to 10 cars
  • C2C Tilbury loop platforms extended to 12 cars
  • FGW suburban services extended to 7 cars from Reading and 6 cars from
     Slough
  • Chingford, Enfield and Cheshunt services extended to 9 cars
  • Seven additional peak services to Southend and Colchester
  • More 12 car trains on Great Northern, West Anglia and Silverlink County
     services
  • 1300 more rail carriages, 80% of which will serve London

Funding for Crossrail was separately announced on 5 October 2007 by the Prime
Minister. This will add 10% to London’s rail capacity when it comes into operation
over the course of twelve months from 2017. This will be taken into account by
Network Rail and others as detailed rail planning activity is undertaken.

DfT also announced £18.5 million funding for freight gauge and capacity
enhancement for the Gospel Oak – Barking line. This allows ‘high cube’ (deep
sea) container trains to operate on this route, providing a diversionary route from
the congested North London line. It also doubles the number of paths per hour,
allowing TfL to run four Overground trains per hour.

TfL’s estimate of the value of this package to London is well over £20 billion. It
will cut crowding overall, especially on routes such as Thameslink, although there
will still be standing on some trains in some places. TfL greatly welcomes this
investment by the Department for Transport.

Importance of rail capacity
The purpose of this note is to set out the passenger rail capacity Transport for
London (TfL) believes is required to meet the needs of the London Plan. This is
particularly important for London as:
•   Londoners rely on rail more than any other area of the country and London’s
    rail system is under greatest stress, experiencing greater overcrowding for
    longer periods than in other regions;
•   Growth in population and employment of about one million apiece will add
    further stress on our transport network.

The future of our economy, communities and environment is inextricably linked to
the ability of the transport network to respond to London’s growth. Improving
London’s rail transport will play a crucial role in supporting the contribution that
the Capital and the wider South East makes to the UK economy.

The work described is one component of TfL’s overall transport strategy. This
document presents the challenges in the rail sector and starts the process for
evaluating a set of strategic proposals to meet them. Our proposals will be tested
against the objectives of future revisions to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and
through consultation with industry and other stakeholders. This will enable
pragmatic, flexible and affordable solutions to be identified that can provide major
benefits to the London and UK economies, contribute positively to the
environment and sustainability through reduced emissions, increase accessibility
and help tackle deprivation, and improve regeneration.

Early conclusions
This represents early conclusions of our research to date which has:
    •    reviewed the nature of London’s transport challenges, notably the need to
         support London’s continuing economic and demographic growth within the
         existing boundaries of the city 1
    •    identified how they affect railways, notably demand and crowding
    •    identified a long list of potential solutions identified together with their costs
         and
    •    sifted these to generate a short list for more detailed investigation and
         appraisal

Accommodating London’s growth

The table overleaf shows forecasts of London’s anticipated growth.




1
  Drawn from ‘Planning for a better London, July 2008, http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/docs/plan-better-
london.pdf
Millions                          2000                   2007               2026 – low              2026 - high
                 2
Population                          7.2                    7.6                    8.3                     8.6
                     3
Households                          2.9                    3.2                    3.7                     3.9
Employment                          4.5                    4.6                                5.5
                         4
In-commuters                       0.69                   0.77                   0.87                    0.83
                     5                                           6                                        7
Road freight                       128                   156                          Not available

TfL’s computer model uses the data above to estimate the growth in passenger
rail demand through to 2026. The graphic below shows the planned and further
possible means of meeting that demand growth.

                                      Plans &           Best use of   New
             Forecasts               proposals           network    railways            New railways – some of
                                                                                        • Crossrail 1 extensions
    60%
                                                                                        • Crossrail 2
                                                                                        • Crossrail 3
                                                                                        • Bakerloo extension
    50%

                                                                                        Efficiency measures
    40%                                                                                 • Peak pricing
                                                                                        • More standing space
                                                                                        • Double-deck trains
    30%                                                                                 • Better signalling
                                                                                        • Operations (e.g. LU
                                                                                          Northern separation)
    20%


    10%                                                                                 Future “HLOS2”
                                                                                        • More 12 car trains
                                                                                        • Some track work, e.g.
                                                                                          West Anglia 4-tracking
          All modes: National Committed         Possible Tech, ops,        New
          boardings   Rail     schemes            future  pricing &      tunnels &
           increase boardings                   “HLOS2” vehicle            lines
          2006 25 2006 25                       capacity   design


We have separately provided graphics that show which rail routes in London are
most crowded and the impact that funding for Thameslink, the programme of train
and platform lengthening around London, Crossrail and the upgrade of the
Overground will have, taken together.

London Rail has begun to identify possible schemes which should be included in
HLOS2 in order to meet the challenge of accommodating London’s growth. The
nature of the specific solutions for each corridor is based on:
     •    detailed understanding of the levels of overcrowding now and in the future;


2
  2000 and 2007 figures from GLA 2007a and GLA 2008a based on ONS mid year estimates, 2026 estimate from GLA
high projection (2007 Round GLA Demographic and Household Projections); N.B. additional ONS mid-year estimates - for
2001, 7.32; for 2006, 7.51
3
  2000 figure from 2026 estimate from the 2007 Round GLA Demographic and Household Projections; N.B. additional
estimates avail. from CLG 2004 based household projections - 2001, 3.04; 2006, 3.20; 2026 3.98
4
  2000 and 2007 figures from TfL 2008a, page 63; 2026 estimate from GLA 2007b, table 6, p.9; N.B. see also table 5 p8
5
  London Travel Report 2007, page 57
6
  2006 data
7
  Road freight projection not currently available
   •   The physical features of the routes, an analysis of different engineering
       solutions, and work to establish the best value option.

The table below shows the nature of some of the possible solutions.




Crossrail 2 is a major infrastructure project that could join up lines in the South
West and North East, which could relieve overcrowding. London Rail wants to
take forward discussion on this.

Our analysis is not set in stone. Circumstances and technology change, demand
evolves and solutions must vary with them. However, we hope that our work will
help drive forward the agenda and direction for what the rail industry can deliver
for London.

Other challenges
Supporting London’s continuing economic and demographic growth within the
existing boundaries of the City is not the only challenge that faces London’s
railways. TfL London Rail is also working on challenges associated with:
   •   Capacity of international links to Heathrow, Stansted and Channel Tunnel
       freight
   •   Station congestion at selected locations
   •   Capacity on some inter-urban links
   •   Cross-London freight capacity
   •   Raising quality to Overground standards on the national rail network in
       London
   •   Tackling barriers to use (such as ticket retailing), way-finding and customer
       information, improving access to stations, safety and security and the need
       for common standards across the national rail network
   •   Demand for a 7-day railway
   •   Sustainability, especially the need to reduce carbon emissions
   •   Supporting outer London development

I hope that this provides you with clarity on TfL’s work in this area to date. I look
forward to continuing to work with you on this over the coming months.

Geoff Hobbs
Head of Strategy, London Rail
Crowding

Oyster data from early 2008 indicates there were approximately 10,900 passengers
entering the London Overground network on a typical day during the morning three-
hour peak (7am to 10am). The one-hour peak accounted for 44% (4,800) of this
figure covering the period from 7.45-8.45am.

 The chart below depicts entries on the network by 15-minute intervals throughout
out the day




The North London Line (NLL) is the busiest section of the London Overground.
Crowding in the morning 3-hour peak westbound service at Canonbury station
averaged at 2.0 passengers per square metre of available standing space. This
figure was 3.5 passengers per square metre during the peak hour (7.45-8.45am).
The proportion of passengers in excess of capacity averaged 12% for the 3-hour
peak and 23% during the 1-hour peak.

Passengers Per square Metre of available standing space

London Overground trains on the North London Line (NLL) have a seating capacity
of 232 passengers. Passengers per square metre standing is a measure of train load
when capacity exceeds seating capacity and passengers are forced to stand.

Table 1 highlights crowding in red with higher numbers of people per square metre
for on-train loads surveyed in autumn 2007 on the Overground. The 07.52 and 08.22
westbound services are the most crowded with crowding not easing until Camden
Road station. The busiest load is 5.3 passengers per square metre at Canonbury
station. Table 2 shows passengers per square metre on the eastbound NLL with
crowding less severe across the morning peak services.
Passengers in Excess of Capacity (PIXC)

PIXC arises when capacity per train exceeds 320 passengers on Overground class
313 operated services, thus allowing for 88 (38% of the total number of seats)
standing passengers. This is an allowance made over and above the seating
capacity for a reasonable number of standing passengers.

Tables 3 and 4 show the eastbound and westbound PIXC on the North London Line.
The figures highlighted in red show where crowding is most acute. This largely
mirrors the same stations and services where the passengers per metre measure
also were high. PIXC is normally used to describe a train route at its busiest point as
shown in the tables below. For comparison to the passengers per metre measure –
PIXC is exceeded when there are more than 1.6 standing passengers per square
metre

Table 1 – Stratford-Richmond (passengers per square metre)
07:07 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))            2.2
07:12 (Stratford Low Level - Willesden Jn. High Leve   1.1
07:22 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))            2.9
07:37 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))            0.0
07:52 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))            5.3
07:59 (Stratford Low Level - Camden Road)              0.6
08:06 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))            4.2
08:22 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))            5.1
08:30 (Stratford Low Level - Willesden Jn. High Leve   4.3
08:37 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))            1.3
08:52 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))            3.8
09:03 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))            1.0
09:11 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))            0.4
09:22 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))            1.8
09:31 (Stratford Low Level - Camden Road)              0.0
09:38 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))            0.0
09:52 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))            0.0




Table 2 – Richmond-Stratford (passengers per square metre)
07:13 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)            0.6
07:27 (Camden Road) - Stratford Low Level)             0.0
07:29 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)            2.7
07:46 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)            4.1
07:59 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)            1.7
08:13 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)            3.9
08:29 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)            0.0
08:30 (Camden Road - Stratford Low Level)              0.0
08:42 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)            0.7
08:59 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)            0.0
09:14 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)            0.0
09:27 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)            0.0
09:42 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)
09:58 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)            0.0
Table 3 – Stratford-Richmond PIXC
07:07 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))             9%
07:12 (Stratford Low Level - Willesden Jn. High Leve    0%
07:22 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))            18%
07:37 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))             0%
07:52 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))            39%
07:59 (Stratford Low Level - Camden Road)               0%
08:06 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))            31%
08:22 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))            38%
08:30 (Stratford Low Level - Willesden Jn. High Leve   31%
08:37 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))             0%
08:52 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))            27%
09:03 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))             0%
09:11 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))             0%
09:22 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))             3%
09:31 (Stratford Low Level - Camden Road)               0%
09:38 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))             0%
09:52 (Stratford Low Level - Richmond (LL))             0%




Table 4 – Richmond-Stratford PIXC
07:13 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)             0%
07:27 (Camden Road) - Stratford Low Level)              0%
07:29 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)            16%
07:46 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)            30%
07:59 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)             2%
08:13 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)            28%
08:29 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)             0%
08:30 (Camden Road - Stratford Low Level)               0%
08:42 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)             0%
08:59 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)             0%
09:14 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)             0%
09:27 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)             0%
09:42 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)
09:58 (Richmond (LL) - Stratford Low Level)            0%
Hi Richard

Sorry for the delay. Answer below:

TfL London Rail believe that for suburban rail services in London , the procurement of
trains on short term leases results in higher whole life costs to operators. Accepting long
term ( 20 year ) leases provides more certainty for the lender which in the case of
Overground trains has resulted in lower charges.

TfL decided to purchase its new fleet of trains with a whole life maintenance agreement
and then enter into a sale and finance lease back arrangement. The sale and lease back
arrangement was competitively tendered and won by QW Rail Leasing Ltd. (
 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/7525.aspx )

TfL was able to offer long term certainty to the lessor as we have long term ownership of
the Overground service.

We provide the trains to LOROL , our Concession Operator to use and will hand them on
to the next operator when the Concession is retendered.

The DfT model allows market forces to apply when franchises are tendered with train
leases expiring at the same time as the franchise. As rail franchises expire at different
times , the new franchise operators must take on what trains exist at that time and pay
the prices required by the ROSCOs who own the trains. There are very few, if any,
 ‘spare’ trains available in the market for franchisees to use and the DfT recognises this
by specifying trains services which align with the numbers of trains available in the
market place or which can be built in the future.

Peter


Peter Field
Head of London Rail Development
Transport for London
From: West London Line Group [mailto:comments@westlondonlinegroup.org.uk]
Sent: 06 November 2008 03:46
To: Chris Burchell
Cc: Andrew Slaughter, MP; MP Barry Gardiner; MP Dawn Butler; MP Gareth Thomas;
mail@greghands.com; MP Louise Ellman; Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP; MP Malcolm Rifkind; MP
Mark Field; Mark Lancaster, MP; MP Mike Penning; MP Sarah Teather; MP Tessa Jowell; MP
Theresa Villiers; Claire Ward, MP; Karen Buck, MP; Martin Linton, MP
Subject: Serious deficiency in southbound Southern WLL morning peak timetable -
December 2008

[Cc’d to MPs]

[Bcc’d to Rail Industry, LAs, key employers, LTW]

Dear Chris

I am writing on behalf of the West London Line Group and the many passengers who are
about to suffer, in the middle of winter, two serious degradations of service in their daily
morning commute.

The Group has very recently expressed its heartfelt thanks to Southern for the swift co-
operative action that is being taken to deal with demand pressures at Shepherd’s Bush WLL
station, within just two weeks of the station’s opening.

However, we feel that we must raise again the very real need, as soon as possible, preferably
within the December 2008/January 2009 timetable changes, but if not then, at the very latest,
by the May 2009 timetable, to find an additional train to operate a c.0700 departure East
Croydon returning ex-Watford c.0810 at least as far south as East Croydon, but preferably
Gatwick. We believe there is an over-riding necessity to address the totally unacceptable 73-
minute gap in the medium-length southbound Southern WLL morning peak service that is
EVEN NOW overwhelmed by existing passenger demand BEFORE the full impacts are felt of
both the TWO new major traffic generators of Westfield London and the Central Line
interchange at Shepherd’s Bush.

On top of these unavoidable pressures, other circumstances now promise a further “double-
whammy”…

1. From December 2008 there will be both revised timings for southbound commuters from
Watford, Harrow & Wealdstone, Wembley Central and Shepherd’s Bush AND one fewer peak
southbound train for them. This will almost certainly cause unacceptable, if not dangerous,
overcrowding which is also likely to result in delays in the timekeeping of the service.

    This unwelcome “turn of the screw” will be then be tightened still further by the following…

2. From January 2009 the service will be restored back to Milton Keynes. The latter
development, promoted by the DfT and welcomed by the West London Line Group, will
encourage more direct travel from the southern end of the WCML corridor through the large
dormitories of south Buckinghamshire and central Hertfordshire towards the four key
commuter destinations of Harrow, Wembley, Shepherd’s Bush, Kensington Olympia (for
Hammersmith Road, Broadway and King Street), West Brompton (for Earls Court Exhibition
Centre and the 4,000-desk Metropolitan Police offices at Empress State) and Clapham
Junction and beyond, for other employment locations across South and South West London.

 THIS WILL PUT FURTHER UNACCEPTABLE PRESSURE ON EXISTING season ticket-
holders and other travellers from Watford, Harrow and Wembley, possibly to the extent of
fighting between passengers to rival that now being reported on the 1729 ex-Watford on
weekday evenings.
 The Group sincerely trusts that a satisfactory solution is found as quickly as possible,
preferably within the December 2008/January 2009 arrangements, so that Southern and its
rail industry partners are not seen to be compromising the safe passage of its many existing
and new travellers, many of who rely on this key service to get to work and have paid for
expensive season tickets to do so.

We believe that a solution should be forthcoming, given the fact that the revision of the
timetable and the restoration back to Milton Keynes are as the result of DfT initiatives, that
demand on the WLL is rising fast, especially in relation to Shepherd’s Bush and Westfield,
rolling stock is available – even now a Class 377/2 on a totally third-rail diagram could be
substituted by a Class 442 and moved to undertake this crucial journey – and many of the
constituencies north of the Thames that are served by the extended WLL corridor are
electorally-volatile.

The Group remains ready to assist with communicating the details of such new arrangements
once agreed.

Yours sincerely




Mark Balaam

Chairman

West London Line Group
  ASLEF Evidence Submission to London Assembly Transport Committee –
       Overcrowding on Overground Rail Routes – November 2008


1. The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF) is the UK’s
   largest train driver’s union representing approximately 18,000 members in train
   operating companies and freight companies as well as London Underground and
   Overground.


2. ASLEF represent drivers on all of the suburban overground routes into London and
   the union is encouraged by the increasing numbers of passengers who are
   choosing to travel by train rather than other less environmentally friendly means of
   transport. Providing incentives for more passengers on to the rail network is
   essential in combating both carbon emissions and congestion.


3. However, as we promote rail use and passenger numbers increase, it is essential
   that supply can meet demand and that increases in capacity are appropriately
   commensurate. A failure to do so will not only physically prevent people travelling
   by train, but will also deter many people who are not willing to suffer the cramped
   and uncomfortable conditions created by overcrowding. It also prevents passengers
   with disabilities and the elderly from being able to travel on many services.


4. ASLEF strongly believes that railways must be central to the future of travel. Around
   30.1 billion passenger miles were generated in 2007 and the railway carried 1.2bn
   passengers, an increase of 7.8 per cent on the previous year. This is the highest
   ever recorded figure in peace time Britain. Notwithstanding these increases, little
   has been done to increase the amount of rolling stock. As increasingly volatile fuel
   prices in the face of greater demand from the developing economies of India and
   China and a reduction in supply as oil peak production becomes increasingly
   historic, the demand for rail is likely to grow at an accelerated pace.
5. ASLEF welcomes the Government’s decision to introduce an extra 1,300 carriages
   however the union is concerned by the lack of actual orders made to
   manufacturers. Delivery of these carriages is essential and the government must
   consider increasing capacity by an even greater extent.


6. Infrastructure enhancements to the signalling network around the capital are
   essential to reducing bottlenecks thereby delivering the increases in capacity so
   necessary to reduce overcrowding. ASLEF does not believe that Network Rail is
   sufficiently ambitious in its signalling upgrade programme – rather than simply
   replacing like for like it should aspire to a system (like that on the London
   Underground) which will allow many more trains to run per hour.


7. Network Rail claim that the train network will be able to cope with a growth of 20 per
   cent by 2014 although such an estimate seems ambitious considering the cramped
   conditions that commuters are currently suffering. There is also the potential that
   considering the accelerated growth of rail usage, that this growth could be
   conservative in its estimations.


8. The Committee ought to be mindful of the fact that the percentage of passengers
   taking rail journeys to, from or within London since 1995/96 has increased by 69.1%
   and journeys within London have increased by 71.6%. The increase in journeys
   between 05/06 and 06/07 was 27.5% alone. This figure illustrates just how large the
   task is in meeting the growing demand for capacity. Current growth figures show
   that the number of journeys is not increasing at a steady rate, rather they are
   increasing at an accelerated pace.


Defining Overcrowding


9. ASLEF is concerned about the Department for Transport’s new guidelines on rail
   overcrowding. The threshold for overcrowding had previously been 10 people
   standing for every 100 seats. However the Department for Transport has tripled the
   industry standard to 30 per 100 seats. This will mean that fewer trains will be
   considered overcrowded despite conditions becoming increasingly uncomfortable.
   The union very much regrets this step.
10. ASLEF also believes that changing this definition it simply distorting the true picture
   and massaging the statistics. Our view is that the focus should be on ensuring
   fewer passengers have to stand in cramped conditions rather than an acceptance
   of more doing so.


Potential Solutions


11. ASLEF welcomes the work to build rail capacity on rail lines in to London, in
   particular   the   Thameslink   Programme.      Throughout    the   network    capacity
   enhancement work is required. We welcome the adaptations which will see stations
   able to take longer trains such as 12 cars. New rolling stock needs to be continually
   introduced while higher frequency services and opening of closed lines can also
   have a positive effect on capacity.


12. ASLEF is of the view that encouraging investment in rail is crucial to resolving the
   issue of overcrowding. The structure of rail franchises makes encouragement of
   long term investment difficult and the fragmented nature of the system means that
   the private companies that run the railway network cannot be relied upon to supply
   long term investment on a voluntarily basis. The appropriate bodies, whether the
   London Assembly, or central government must maintain pressure on the various
   organisations involved in running the railways ensure they play their part in ensuring
   capacity increases and that supply can meet the growing demand.


13. We would also draw attention to the recently announced cancellation of £3.7 billion
   worth of transport improvements including the cross river tram as well as extensions
   to the Docklands Light Railway and Croydon Tramlink. Cutting such planned
   infrastructure developments will only add to overcrowding on railways in London.


Conclusions


14. Throughout the network there are many stations and routes where overcrowding is
   increasingly a problem making it difficult to specify individual cases. Over the last
   year, journeys to, from or within London have increased by 27.5%. It is therefore
   logical to assume that unless rail capacity increases by the same percentage,
   overcrowding will become an increasing problem for passengers in London.
Therefore ASLEF believes a programme of platform lengthening and investment in
rolling stock as well as potential re-opening of lines are essential to solving this
problem and encouraging more people onto the rail network.


                                                                   Keith Norman
                                                                General Secretary
                                                                          ASLEF
                                                                9 Arkwright Road
                                                                London NW3 6AB
  ASLEF Evidence Submission to London Assembly Transport Committee –
       Overcrowding on Overground Rail Routes – November 2008


1. The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF) is the UK’s
   largest train driver’s union representing approximately 18,000 members in train
   operating companies and freight companies as well as London Underground and
   Overground.


2. ASLEF represent drivers on all of the suburban overground routes into London and
   the union is encouraged by the increasing numbers of passengers who are
   choosing to travel by train rather than other less environmentally friendly means of
   transport. Providing incentives for more passengers on to the rail network is
   essential in combating both carbon emissions and congestion.


3. However, as we promote rail use and passenger numbers increase, it is essential
   that supply can meet demand and that increases in capacity are appropriately
   commensurate. A failure to do so will not only physically prevent people travelling
   by train, but will also deter many people who are not willing to suffer the cramped
   and uncomfortable conditions created by overcrowding. It also prevents passengers
   with disabilities and the elderly from being able to travel on many services.


4. ASLEF strongly believes that railways must be central to the future of travel. Around
   30.1 billion passenger miles were generated in 2007 and the railway carried 1.2bn
   passengers, an increase of 7.8 per cent on the previous year. This is the highest
   ever recorded figure in peace time Britain. Notwithstanding these increases, little
   has been done to increase the amount of rolling stock. As increasingly volatile fuel
   prices in the face of greater demand from the developing economies of India and
   China and a reduction in supply as oil peak production becomes increasingly
   historic, the demand for rail is likely to grow at an accelerated pace.
5. ASLEF welcomes the Government’s decision to introduce an extra 1,300 carriages
   however the union is concerned by the lack of actual orders made to
   manufacturers. Delivery of these carriages is essential and the government must
   consider increasing capacity by an even greater extent.


6. Infrastructure enhancements to the signalling network around the capital are
   essential to reducing bottlenecks thereby delivering the increases in capacity so
   necessary to reduce overcrowding. ASLEF does not believe that Network Rail is
   sufficiently ambitious in its signalling upgrade programme – rather than simply
   replacing like for like it should aspire to a system (like that on the London
   Underground) which will allow many more trains to run per hour.


7. Network Rail claim that the train network will be able to cope with a growth of 20 per
   cent by 2014 although such an estimate seems ambitious considering the cramped
   conditions that commuters are currently suffering. There is also the potential that
   considering the accelerated growth of rail usage, that this growth could be
   conservative in its estimations.


8. The Committee ought to be mindful of the fact that the percentage of passengers
   taking rail journeys to, from or within London since 1995/96 has increased by 69.1%
   and journeys within London have increased by 71.6%. The increase in journeys
   between 05/06 and 06/07 was 27.5% alone. This figure illustrates just how large the
   task is in meeting the growing demand for capacity. Current growth figures show
   that the number of journeys is not increasing at a steady rate, rather they are
   increasing at an accelerated pace.


Defining Overcrowding


9. ASLEF is concerned about the Department for Transport’s new guidelines on rail
   overcrowding. The threshold for overcrowding had previously been 10 people
   standing for every 100 seats. However the Department for Transport has tripled the
   industry standard to 30 per 100 seats. This will mean that fewer trains will be
   considered overcrowded despite conditions becoming increasingly uncomfortable.
   The union very much regrets this step.
10. ASLEF also believes that changing this definition it simply distorting the true picture
   and massaging the statistics. Our view is that the focus should be on ensuring
   fewer passengers have to stand in cramped conditions rather than an acceptance
   of more doing so.


Potential Solutions


11. ASLEF welcomes the work to build rail capacity on rail lines in to London, in
   particular   the   Thameslink   Programme.      Throughout    the   network    capacity
   enhancement work is required. We welcome the adaptations which will see stations
   able to take longer trains such as 12 cars. New rolling stock needs to be continually
   introduced while higher frequency services and opening of closed lines can also
   have a positive effect on capacity.


12. ASLEF is of the view that encouraging investment in rail is crucial to resolving the
   issue of overcrowding. The structure of rail franchises makes encouragement of
   long term investment difficult and the fragmented nature of the system means that
   the private companies that run the railway network cannot be relied upon to supply
   long term investment on a voluntarily basis. The appropriate bodies, whether the
   London Assembly, or central government must maintain pressure on the various
   organisations involved in running the railways ensure they play their part in ensuring
   capacity increases and that supply can meet the growing demand.


13. We would also draw attention to the recently announced cancellation of £3.7 billion
   worth of transport improvements including the cross river tram as well as extensions
   to the Docklands Light Railway and Croydon Tramlink. Cutting such planned
   infrastructure developments will only add to overcrowding on railways in London.


Conclusions


14. Throughout the network there are many stations and routes where overcrowding is
   increasingly a problem making it difficult to specify individual cases. Over the last
   year, journeys to, from or within London have increased by 27.5%. It is therefore
   logical to assume that unless rail capacity increases by the same percentage,
   overcrowding will become an increasing problem for passengers in London.
Therefore ASLEF believes a programme of platform lengthening and investment in
rolling stock as well as potential re-opening of lines are essential to solving this
problem and encouraging more people onto the rail network.


                                                                   Keith Norman
                                                                General Secretary
                                                                          ASLEF
                                                                9 Arkwright Road
                                                                London NW3 6AB
                  Association of Train Operating Companies

Submission to the London Assembly Transport Committee

                         Rail Overcrowding in London


Context – transport congestion

London is a vibrant and growing city, a world class capital and the hub of Britain’s
transport network. Its transport infrastructure now has to meet considerably
greater levels of demand than that for which it was designed. All modes are
congested and experience overcrowding at times of peak demand. Rail is not
unique, and indeed has many similarities with the Underground and DLR
networks. Bus passengers experience both overcrowding and delays from a
congested road network, while car journey times are unpredictable as a result of
overcrowded roads. Growth in demand for air travel has meant continuous
expansion of London’s airports over many years, but has not prevented peak
terminal overcrowding or delays in handling the burgeoning number of flights.


The Nature of the Challenge

Growth. Rail overcrowding stems directly from the very strong growth in the
numbers of passengers carried nationally since 1995. Passenger journeys have
risen by 45% over this period, and now stand at 1.232bn annually, the highest
level ever achieved on Britain’s railways in peacetime. Within London and the
South East during this period, passenger journeys have risen by 61% to 833
million.

The market in the South East is dominated by London commuting, and the peak
demand is dictated by employers’ requirements in Central London and Docklands.
This in turn determines the overall level of resource required – both rolling stock
and infrastructure. Rail (National Rail, London Underground and DLR) carries
some 80% of travellers to Central London during the morning peak period.
National Rail carries half a million commuters into Central London each morning.

This level of future demand clearly depends on a number of factors, including:

   •   National economic growth
   •   London’s role as a world financial centre and a thriving capital city
   •   The success of London in continuing to attract investment and new jobs
   •   The effect of Docklands and Thames Gateway in attracting future
       employment growth away from Central London (This has already put
       pressure on rail routes to the east of London).
   •   Changing patterns of work, including part time and home working, and
       employers’ approach to flexible office working hours

Previous policies on dispersal of jobs, more flexible working hours or home
working appear to have had little effect on the steady rise in overall demand for
peak time travel. Peak period demand forecast by both TfL and DfT suggest an
increase of 30% by the mid 2020s.




                                         1
Constraints. Infrastructure may be constrained by the number of tracks
available, the limitations of the signalling system or the length of station
platforms. Solutions may be possible in some cases through resignalling or
extending platforms, but practical and affordable opportunities to provide
additional tracks in the London area are limited.

Rolling stock has a number of technical limitations which mean that it cannot be
easily redeployed from one part of the network to any other part. Different
voltage and current collection systems may mean that appropriate rolling stock is
not always readily available, even where DfT is prepared to fund it through the
franchise agreement. In these cases, a ‘cascade’ of vehicles may be required in
order to release trains with specific technical characteristics to enhance the fleet
on certain routes. This has been successfully achieved by train operators working
together, as in the case of Southern and First Capital Connect, as described
below.

Train operators are contractually obliged to deliver the capacity requirements set
out in the franchise agreement. Franchise specifications by Government are
highly prescriptive, and include service frequencies and capacity requirements
linked in many cases to the PIXC measure (explained below). Resource plans are
developed to meet this requirement, and the costs are reflected in the level of
franchise payment agreed with the franchise operator following competitive
tenders. In some cases this will be a payment by Government (subsidy) to the
train operator, and in others a payment by the train operator (premium) to
Government. In either case, the resource required is generally funded through
the franchise agreement, and this provides the framework to meet the PIXC level,
unless growth exceeds the assumptions on which it was based . Train operators
are not, however, funded to provide more peak accommodation than required to
meet the target, nor to provide a seat for every passenger.

Defining overcrowding. Overcrowding does not equate to the total number of
passengers standing, and trains on inner suburban services, like Underground
trains, are designed with capacity for significant numbers of standing passengers.

Rail overcrowding is measured using the figure for ‘Passengers in Excess of
Capacity’ (PIXC). For this purpose, the Department for Transport has defined
capacity as the number of seats on the train, together with an allocation of
0.45m2 per passenger in those areas available for standing. For most types of
suburban train, this means that overall capacity is approximately 30% above that
of the number of seats, and for the purpose of calculating PIXC, an overall
tolerance of 3% is specified. Planning is based on using this figure for journeys
up to 20 minutes. For journeys over 20 minutes it is planned that passengers
should be able to get a seat, subject again to the 3% tolerance.

PIXC figures are published by the Office of Rail Regulation in National Rail Trends.
ORR is working on a replacement table to cover a greater number of train
operators and that will reflect the variety of crowding measures being used by
DfT for monitoring. The latest available PIXC figures show an overall PIXC of
3.5% in 2006, up from 2.9% in 2005. Of the nine train operators listed, five had
figures in excess of 3%. The overall figure has remained relatively constant for
some years, with the increase in passenger numbers being accommodated
through effective deployment of the rolling stock available by train operators.




                                         2
Government Objectives. In the 2007 White Paper, Delivering a Sustainable
Railway, the Government set out the three objectives of the High Level Output
Statement in relation to overcrowding:

   •   To move average peak hour load factors down to 70% of total capacity
       (seated and standing)
   •   To avoid increases in average peak hour load factors at any London
       terminus
   •   To target capacity increases at the services with the most severe
       overcrowding.


What Train Operators are doing

ATOC agrees that overcrowding needs to be tackled, to provide better travelling
conditions; remove a disincentive for passengers; and provide for future growth
as London continues to grow and more people chose to use the train. Train
operators want to continue to attract more passengers with a quality service, and
are incentivised to carry more people through the terms of their franchise
agreements. Whilst this requires both the provision of more rolling stock and
additional infrastructure, it also requires the train operator’s unique ability to
manage these resources effectively to maximise the additional capacity they can
provide to stay within the PIXC levels.

Better management/longer trains. Train operators and ATOC are working to
tackle overcrowding in four ways:

   1. Effective use of the timetabling process, where train loading data is
      analysed closely by train operators and used in planning the service
      pattern and train lengths to optimise the capacity provided in the light of
      the rolling stock available.
   2. Routine monitoring of passenger loading, looking at stopping patterns of
      trains and train lengths.
   3. Analysis of infrastructure capacity through the Route Utilisation Studies to
      make the most of the existing track and signalling capacity, and to identify
      enhancements that would improve things for passengers.
   4. Provision of good quality, real time information so that passengers can
      make informed choices about their journey, particularly in the event of
      service disruption.

Such expertise in fine tuning services has provided the capacity to accommodate
the significant growth since 1995, but a step change in capacity is now required
through enhancing infrastructure and in running longer trains.


What DfT/Network Rail are doing in conjunction with train operators

Longer trains. The principal short term improvement is the lengthening of
trains using the 1300 additional coaches, a commitment by Government in their
High Level Output Statement of July 2007. Associated with this are the
lengthening of platforms, extension of depot capacity and the provision of more
sidings to stable trains, all of which are required to allow the longer trains to run.
Train operators will have the task of managing the introduction of these extra
trains and the supporting facilities required to deliver a reliable service to
passengers.



                                          3
DfT is working on the programme for delivering the 1300 coaches. Details of
some of the new orders are known, for example the new vehicles for Southern,
which will release coaches to add capacity on First Capital Connect. However, the
full picture has not yet been set out by DfT, and it is not possible at this stage to
give details of how many of the 1300 would be allocated to work predominantly
on London inner suburban services. Additional vehicles will certainly make a
difference by reducing overcrowding based on the numbers being carried now
together with the 3% p.a. growth assumed, although this is about half that
currently being experienced. It is likely that further new coaches will need to be
ordered to accommodate the actual profile of growth. This is likely to be true
particularly for South West Trains, where the last published PIXC figure was
5.8%, and which will not benefit directly from the new line proposals listed below.


New Lines. Five major infrastructure projects are at an advanced stage of
development, which together will provide a very significant increase in capacity
for passengers travelling in Greater London:

HS1, Ashford (Kent) to St Pancras International provides a major increase in
capacity from Kent to London for both international and domestic high speed
services and greater capacity at St Pancras. Southeastern will introduce Kent
high speed services from December, 2009. In particular, this will take pressure
off the busy routes between Sevenoaks and London and Swanley and London.
Dockland Light Railway extension to Woolwich, will provide additional capacity in
South East London and a new link from the North Kent Line to Docklands. Opens
February, 2009. This is likely to reduce pressure on the North Kent line between
Woolwich and London Bridge.
East London Line, will link South London suburban lines with Docklands and the
North London Line. The first phase will provide increased frequencies on the lines
to Crystal Palace and West Croydon and opens in 2010.
Thameslink Programme. Expansion of current Thameslink route to take 12-car
trains. Followed by increased infrastructure to give potential capacity of up to 24
trains per hour in central London section. To be implemented by 2015.
Crossrail. New cross-London route linking Paddington with Liverpool Street,
Stratford and Canary Wharf and connecting lines to Heathrow Airport,
Maidenhead, Shenfield and Abbey Wood. Parliamentary powers secured, and
completion planned for 2017.


Additional infrastructure by 2014. Included in the next Network Rail Control
Period (CP4) is provision for a number of significant schemes to provide extra
capacity in London and the South East. They include:

   •   Platform lengthening and siding capacity for longer trains
   •   Extra platform at Waterloo in 2009 (in International terminal)
   •   Reading area reconstruction with grade separated junctions, additional
       platforms and more capacity
   •   Completion of West Coast Main Line upgrade
   •   East Coast Main Line two extra tracks for passenger trains between
       Finsbury Park and Alexandra Palace, Hitchin flyover and extra platforms at
       Peterborough.
   •   Great Eastern Main Line, extra platforms and platform lengthening at
       Stratford, along with station enhancements for the Olympics.




                                          4
Tackling the pinchpoints

This table summarises the major enhancements being undertaken on the
principal commuter routes around London, together with the timescale for
completion, and relates them to the levels of overcrowding measured by the last
published PIXC figures.

Corridor                  PIXC %     Enhancement                 Date       Notes
                          (2006)#
Thames Valley             8.2        1) Reading upgrade          2014
                                     2) Crossrail                2017       Will it be extended
                                                                            to Reading?
S.W.London                5.8        Longer trains               By 2014    Use of Waterloo
                                                                            Int*
MML from St Pancras       4.1        Additional trains           Dec 2008   MML
                          (T’link)   Longer trains               2014       Thameslink
                                                                            scheme
N.E.London/Essex          3.9        Longer trains               By 2014
                                     Crossrail                   2017
WCML from Euston          3.8        1) Upgrade under way        Dec 2008   Longer Pendolinos
                          (S’link)   2) Longer trains            By 2014    Longer commuter
                                                                            trains
ECML from Kings X         2.9        1) Longer trains            2015       Thameslink prog.
                          (WAGN)     2)Infrastructure schemes    By 2014    Hitchin    flyover,
                                                                            &c
South London              2.8        ELL extension               2010       To Crystal Palace,
                                                                            W. Croydon
North Kent via Dartford   2.2 (SE)   1) DLR extension to         Feb 2009
                                     Woolwich
                                     2) Crossrail                2017
Kent                      2.2 (SE)   High speed services to St   Dec 2009   Releases capacity
                                     Pancras                                on classic network
Chiltern                  1.3        Longer trains                          Inf. enhancements
                                                                            delivered
Southend Line             0.5        Longer trains               By 2014    Tilbury loop

*      Requires infrastructure work on approaches to Waterloo to enable this
capacity to be used effectively
#      Latest available figures from ORR. Since then there has been continuing
growth, but also improved resource allocation. Several franchises have changed
operator since 2006, as indicated.




                                              5
Issues still to be addressed


By train operators

   •   Train operators are the most closely involved as they look after the
       relationship with passengers and answer to them for the pressures
       resulting from overcrowding day by day. Even with more rolling stock and
       infrastructure enhancements, the key to success will remain with train
       operators in terms of matching demand with the resources available.
       Continuous attention to timetable design, train formations and information
       systems are all essential to providing the quality of service that
       passengers expect.
   •   ATOC will continue to work closely with Network Rail and TfL in identifying
       the requirement for increased capacity through the Route Utilisation
       Strategies and the next High Level Output Statement.
   •   ATOC and train operators will continue to press the case for further
       expansion of fleet size and for infrastructure enhancement to meet the
       growing demand for rail services.
   •   The ability of train operators to respond quickly to increasing demand by
       lengthening trains can be constrained by their contractual commitments to
       Government through the franchise agreement, and by the relatively short
       term of most franchises.

By Government, Network Rail, TfL

   •   The key role for DfT is to work with industry players to accelerate the
       delivery of the 1300 coaches to meet to tackle current overcrowding.
   •   The key role for Network Rail is to work with industry players to deliver
       the enhancement projects to which they are committed between 2009 and
       2014.
   •   A greater degree of franchising flexibility would allow train operators to
       provide a closer match between demand and supply than can be achieved
       through the current arrangements.
   •   In the longer term (2015 and beyond), the European Rail Traffic
       Management System (ERTMS) would enable replacement of conventional
       signalling with a new system which might provide additional capacity.
   •   The Mayor also has powers to procure additional train services within
       Greater London and the surrounding area.




31st October 2008




                                        6
                  Association of Train Operating Companies

Submission to the London Assembly Transport Committee

                         Rail Overcrowding in London


Context – transport congestion

London is a vibrant and growing city, a world class capital and the hub of Britain’s
transport network. Its transport infrastructure now has to meet considerably
greater levels of demand than that for which it was designed. All modes are
congested and experience overcrowding at times of peak demand. Rail is not
unique, and indeed has many similarities with the Underground and DLR
networks. Bus passengers experience both overcrowding and delays from a
congested road network, while car journey times are unpredictable as a result of
overcrowded roads. Growth in demand for air travel has meant continuous
expansion of London’s airports over many years, but has not prevented peak
terminal overcrowding or delays in handling the burgeoning number of flights.


The Nature of the Challenge

Growth. Rail overcrowding stems directly from the very strong growth in the
numbers of passengers carried nationally since 1995. Passenger journeys have
risen by 45% over this period, and now stand at 1.232bn annually, the highest
level ever achieved on Britain’s railways in peacetime. Within London and the
South East during this period, passenger journeys have risen by 61% to 833
million.

The market in the South East is dominated by London commuting, and the peak
demand is dictated by employers’ requirements in Central London and Docklands.
This in turn determines the overall level of resource required – both rolling stock
and infrastructure. Rail (National Rail, London Underground and DLR) carries
some 80% of travellers to Central London during the morning peak period.
National Rail carries half a million commuters into Central London each morning.

This level of future demand clearly depends on a number of factors, including:

   •   National economic growth
   •   London’s role as a world financial centre and a thriving capital city
   •   The success of London in continuing to attract investment and new jobs
   •   The effect of Docklands and Thames Gateway in attracting future
       employment growth away from Central London (This has already put
       pressure on rail routes to the east of London).
   •   Changing patterns of work, including part time and home working, and
       employers’ approach to flexible office working hours

Previous policies on dispersal of jobs, more flexible working hours or home
working appear to have had little effect on the steady rise in overall demand for
peak time travel. Peak period demand forecast by both TfL and DfT suggest an
increase of 30% by the mid 2020s.




                                         1
Constraints. Infrastructure may be constrained by the number of tracks
available, the limitations of the signalling system or the length of station
platforms. Solutions may be possible in some cases through resignalling or
extending platforms, but practical and affordable opportunities to provide
additional tracks in the London area are limited.

Rolling stock has a number of technical limitations which mean that it cannot be
easily redeployed from one part of the network to any other part. Different
voltage and current collection systems may mean that appropriate rolling stock is
not always readily available, even where DfT is prepared to fund it through the
franchise agreement. In these cases, a ‘cascade’ of vehicles may be required in
order to release trains with specific technical characteristics to enhance the fleet
on certain routes. This has been successfully achieved by train operators working
together, as in the case of Southern and First Capital Connect, as described
below.

Train operators are contractually obliged to deliver the capacity requirements set
out in the franchise agreement. Franchise specifications by Government are
highly prescriptive, and include service frequencies and capacity requirements
linked in many cases to the PIXC measure (explained below). Resource plans are
developed to meet this requirement, and the costs are reflected in the level of
franchise payment agreed with the franchise operator following competitive
tenders. In some cases this will be a payment by Government (subsidy) to the
train operator, and in others a payment by the train operator (premium) to
Government. In either case, the resource required is generally funded through
the franchise agreement, and this provides the framework to meet the PIXC level,
unless growth exceeds the assumptions on which it was based . Train operators
are not, however, funded to provide more peak accommodation than required to
meet the target, nor to provide a seat for every passenger.

Defining overcrowding. Overcrowding does not equate to the total number of
passengers standing, and trains on inner suburban services, like Underground
trains, are designed with capacity for significant numbers of standing passengers.

Rail overcrowding is measured using the figure for ‘Passengers in Excess of
Capacity’ (PIXC). For this purpose, the Department for Transport has defined
capacity as the number of seats on the train, together with an allocation of
0.45m2 per passenger in those areas available for standing. For most types of
suburban train, this means that overall capacity is approximately 30% above that
of the number of seats, and for the purpose of calculating PIXC, an overall
tolerance of 3% is specified. Planning is based on using this figure for journeys
up to 20 minutes. For journeys over 20 minutes it is planned that passengers
should be able to get a seat, subject again to the 3% tolerance.

PIXC figures are published by the Office of Rail Regulation in National Rail Trends.
ORR is working on a replacement table to cover a greater number of train
operators and that will reflect the variety of crowding measures being used by
DfT for monitoring. The latest available PIXC figures show an overall PIXC of
3.5% in 2006, up from 2.9% in 2005. Of the nine train operators listed, five had
figures in excess of 3%. The overall figure has remained relatively constant for
some years, with the increase in passenger numbers being accommodated
through effective deployment of the rolling stock available by train operators.




                                         2
Government Objectives. In the 2007 White Paper, Delivering a Sustainable
Railway, the Government set out the three objectives of the High Level Output
Statement in relation to overcrowding:

   •   To move average peak hour load factors down to 70% of total capacity
       (seated and standing)
   •   To avoid increases in average peak hour load factors at any London
       terminus
   •   To target capacity increases at the services with the most severe
       overcrowding.


What Train Operators are doing

ATOC agrees that overcrowding needs to be tackled, to provide better travelling
conditions; remove a disincentive for passengers; and provide for future growth
as London continues to grow and more people chose to use the train. Train
operators want to continue to attract more passengers with a quality service, and
are incentivised to carry more people through the terms of their franchise
agreements. Whilst this requires both the provision of more rolling stock and
additional infrastructure, it also requires the train operator’s unique ability to
manage these resources effectively to maximise the additional capacity they can
provide to stay within the PIXC levels.

Better management/longer trains. Train operators and ATOC are working to
tackle overcrowding in four ways:

   1. Effective use of the timetabling process, where train loading data is
      analysed closely by train operators and used in planning the service
      pattern and train lengths to optimise the capacity provided in the light of
      the rolling stock available.
   2. Routine monitoring of passenger loading, looking at stopping patterns of
      trains and train lengths.
   3. Analysis of infrastructure capacity through the Route Utilisation Studies to
      make the most of the existing track and signalling capacity, and to identify
      enhancements that would improve things for passengers.
   4. Provision of good quality, real time information so that passengers can
      make informed choices about their journey, particularly in the event of
      service disruption.

Such expertise in fine tuning services has provided the capacity to accommodate
the significant growth since 1995, but a step change in capacity is now required
through enhancing infrastructure and in running longer trains.


What DfT/Network Rail are doing in conjunction with train operators

Longer trains. The principal short term improvement is the lengthening of
trains using the 1300 additional coaches, a commitment by Government in their
High Level Output Statement of July 2007. Associated with this are the
lengthening of platforms, extension of depot capacity and the provision of more
sidings to stable trains, all of which are required to allow the longer trains to run.
Train operators will have the task of managing the introduction of these extra
trains and the supporting facilities required to deliver a reliable service to
passengers.



                                          3
DfT is working on the programme for delivering the 1300 coaches. Details of
some of the new orders are known, for example the new vehicles for Southern,
which will release coaches to add capacity on First Capital Connect. However, the
full picture has not yet been set out by DfT, and it is not possible at this stage to
give details of how many of the 1300 would be allocated to work predominantly
on London inner suburban services. Additional vehicles will certainly make a
difference by reducing overcrowding based on the numbers being carried now
together with the 3% p.a. growth assumed, although this is about half that
currently being experienced. It is likely that further new coaches will need to be
ordered to accommodate the actual profile of growth. This is likely to be true
particularly for South West Trains, where the last published PIXC figure was
5.8%, and which will not benefit directly from the new line proposals listed below.


New Lines. Five major infrastructure projects are at an advanced stage of
development, which together will provide a very significant increase in capacity
for passengers travelling in Greater London:

HS1, Ashford (Kent) to St Pancras International provides a major increase in
capacity from Kent to London for both international and domestic high speed
services and greater capacity at St Pancras. Southeastern will introduce Kent
high speed services from December, 2009. In particular, this will take pressure
off the busy routes between Sevenoaks and London and Swanley and London.
Dockland Light Railway extension to Woolwich, will provide additional capacity in
South East London and a new link from the North Kent Line to Docklands. Opens
February, 2009. This is likely to reduce pressure on the North Kent line between
Woolwich and London Bridge.
East London Line, will link South London suburban lines with Docklands and the
North London Line. The first phase will provide increased frequencies on the lines
to Crystal Palace and West Croydon and opens in 2010.
Thameslink Programme. Expansion of current Thameslink route to take 12-car
trains. Followed by increased infrastructure to give potential capacity of up to 24
trains per hour in central London section. To be implemented by 2015.
Crossrail. New cross-London route linking Paddington with Liverpool Street,
Stratford and Canary Wharf and connecting lines to Heathrow Airport,
Maidenhead, Shenfield and Abbey Wood. Parliamentary powers secured, and
completion planned for 2017.


Additional infrastructure by 2014. Included in the next Network Rail Control
Period (CP4) is provision for a number of significant schemes to provide extra
capacity in London and the South East. They include:

   •   Platform lengthening and siding capacity for longer trains
   •   Extra platform at Waterloo in 2009 (in International terminal)
   •   Reading area reconstruction with grade separated junctions, additional
       platforms and more capacity
   •   Completion of West Coast Main Line upgrade
   •   East Coast Main Line two extra tracks for passenger trains between
       Finsbury Park and Alexandra Palace, Hitchin flyover and extra platforms at
       Peterborough.
   •   Great Eastern Main Line, extra platforms and platform lengthening at
       Stratford, along with station enhancements for the Olympics.




                                          4
Tackling the pinchpoints

This table summarises the major enhancements being undertaken on the
principal commuter routes around London, together with the timescale for
completion, and relates them to the levels of overcrowding measured by the last
published PIXC figures.

Corridor                  PIXC %     Enhancement                 Date       Notes
                          (2006)#
Thames Valley             8.2        1) Reading upgrade          2014
                                     2) Crossrail                2017       Will it be extended
                                                                            to Reading?
S.W.London                5.8        Longer trains               By 2014    Use of Waterloo
                                                                            Int*
MML from St Pancras       4.1        Additional trains           Dec 2008   MML
                          (T’link)   Longer trains               2014       Thameslink
                                                                            scheme
N.E.London/Essex          3.9        Longer trains               By 2014
                                     Crossrail                   2017
WCML from Euston          3.8        1) Upgrade under way        Dec 2008   Longer Pendolinos
                          (S’link)   2) Longer trains            By 2014    Longer commuter
                                                                            trains
ECML from Kings X         2.9        1) Longer trains            2015       Thameslink prog.
                          (WAGN)     2)Infrastructure schemes    By 2014    Hitchin    flyover,
                                                                            &c
South London              2.8        ELL extension               2010       To Crystal Palace,
                                                                            W. Croydon
North Kent via Dartford   2.2 (SE)   1) DLR extension to         Feb 2009
                                     Woolwich
                                     2) Crossrail                2017
Kent                      2.2 (SE)   High speed services to St   Dec 2009   Releases capacity
                                     Pancras                                on classic network
Chiltern                  1.3        Longer trains                          Inf. enhancements
                                                                            delivered
Southend Line             0.5        Longer trains               By 2014    Tilbury loop

*      Requires infrastructure work on approaches to Waterloo to enable this
capacity to be used effectively
#      Latest available figures from ORR. Since then there has been continuing
growth, but also improved resource allocation. Several franchises have changed
operator since 2006, as indicated.




                                              5
Issues still to be addressed


By train operators

   •   Train operators are the most closely involved as they look after the
       relationship with passengers and answer to them for the pressures
       resulting from overcrowding day by day. Even with more rolling stock and
       infrastructure enhancements, the key to success will remain with train
       operators in terms of matching demand with the resources available.
       Continuous attention to timetable design, train formations and information
       systems are all essential to providing the quality of service that
       passengers expect.
   •   ATOC will continue to work closely with Network Rail and TfL in identifying
       the requirement for increased capacity through the Route Utilisation
       Strategies and the next High Level Output Statement.
   •   ATOC and train operators will continue to press the case for further
       expansion of fleet size and for infrastructure enhancement to meet the
       growing demand for rail services.
   •   The ability of train operators to respond quickly to increasing demand by
       lengthening trains can be constrained by their contractual commitments to
       Government through the franchise agreement, and by the relatively short
       term of most franchises.

By Government, Network Rail, TfL

   •   The key role for DfT is to work with industry players to accelerate the
       delivery of the 1300 coaches to meet to tackle current overcrowding.
   •   The key role for Network Rail is to work with industry players to deliver
       the enhancement projects to which they are committed between 2009 and
       2014.
   •   A greater degree of franchising flexibility would allow train operators to
       provide a closer match between demand and supply than can be achieved
       through the current arrangements.
   •   In the longer term (2015 and beyond), the European Rail Traffic
       Management System (ERTMS) would enable replacement of conventional
       signalling with a new system which might provide additional capacity.
   •   The Mayor also has powers to procure additional train services within
       Greater London and the surrounding area.




31st October 2008




                                        6
Dear Richard,

Thank you for you e-mail of the 8th December.

ATOC welcomed the Government’s decision in the Pre Budget Review to bring forward the
introduction of 200 of the new carriages. These 200 vehicles are diesel trains, and given the
current levels of demand, ATOC would similarly welcome earlier introduction of some of the
vehicles for electric trains for train operators running services to and from London, although
we recognise the good progress made with the 423 vehicles already ordered.

One practical constraint, however, is how quickly the trains could be delivered. Carriages are
built to order, and there is no pool of spare vehicles for sale or lease. Delivery of a large run
of new vehicles would be dependent upon the manufacturers’ ability to meet a quicker
timescale, which would probably only be established following the competitive tendering
process.

As a general comment, though, we should like to see rapid progress in agreeing terms for the
remaining additional vehicles, and would be happy to see more vehicles delivered earlier to
meet the growth in demand that we described in our evidence.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Austin




Chris Austin, OBE,
Head of Public Affairs
Association of Train Operating Companies,
3rd Floor, 40 Bernard Street,
London WC1N 1BY
Summary for London TravelWatch: First Class travel volume


1. First Class travel wholly within the London TravelWatch area


                                                  Passenger
Ticket type                                        Journeys Ticket issues
Rail-only Full Single/Rtn                            29,040        20,772
Rail-only Cheap Day Rtn                              15,602         7,801
Train Tube Single/Rtn                                   794           551
Rail-only Season                                     53,901         1,229
Travelcard Season                                    80,273         2,553
                                                    179,610        32,906


2. First class travel from outside London into the LTW area

                                                  Passenger
Product type                                       Journeys Ticket issues
Rail-only Full Single/Rtn                          1,198,296      711,343
Rail-only walk-up off-peak Single/Rtn                576,132      479,477
Rail-only Advance Purchase Singe/Return              325,946      320,330
Rail+Tube Full single/returns                        343,383      184,195
Rail+Tube walk-up off-peak Single/Rtn                120,916       65,266
Rail+Tube Advance Purchase Singe/Return               11,441       11,405
Day Travelcards                                      352,672      177,404
Rail-only Season                                   2,559,334       55,861
Travelcard Season                                  1,854,359       47,351
Standard-to-First supplement                               0      141,391
                                                   7,342,478    2,194,023
Transport committee investigation into rail overcrowding

Written evidence from BAA (4th November 2008)


Dear Richard

I would like to thank Valerie for the opportunity to respond on the question of rail
overcrowding. BAA has long recognised the key role public transport plays in getting
people to and from Heathrow Airport this is demonstrated by the large investment that it
has made over the years in building heavy rail access into the airport as well extending both
the Piccadilly line and heavy rail to the new Terminal 5. In line with BAA's long term
strategy to continue to grow the public transport mode share at the airport development
continues on both Airtrack connection to the south of the airport and cross rail access to
the north.

BAA currently operates 2 rail services Heathrow Express and Heathrow Connect both with
rolling stock that was funded by BAA. During the 10 years of operation of the Heathrow
Express service capacity has been increased to be able to continue to offer the customers
the level of service that is associated with a premium brand. Heathrow Connect has been in
operation for 3 years and likewise has had an increase in capacity during this time. The core
driver that BAA sees to delivering these increases in capacity is to be able to deliver
excellent service the essence of which is not to have overcrowding.

BAA is currently working with stakeholders to increase the 2tph of the Heathrow Connect
service to 4tph for 2010, this capacity increase will deliver benefits to both airport
passengers and commuters on the line of route alike.

BAA recently hosted a major conference on connecting high speed rail with Heathrow
seeking to ensure that connectivity to Heathrow in terms of infrastructure, services and
capacity are addressed into the future.



Brian Raven
Managing Director
Heathrow Express
07710 079 311
020 8750 6601
Transport Committee investigation into rail overcrowding

Written evidence from the Barking-Gospel Oak Line User Group (14 October
2008)


Dear Sir/Madam,

I understand the Transport Committee is holding a meeting on this subject on Thursday,
16th October for Transport Groups.

Would it be possible for the Barking-Gospel Oak Line User Group to send a representative
to this meeting as our peak-period trains have been suffering from chronic overcrowding
since 2005.

Transport for London funded "PIXC-buster" trains prior to the service being brought under
the London Overground umbrella from 11th November 2007. Since then the inclusion of
the line on the Underground map and the introduction of Oyster Prepay, has caused
overcrowding to increase to severe levels. We are aware of passengers who now take longer
bus and Underground journeys because they simply cannot get on the train.

The peak service is of 2-car trains every 20 minutes and BGOLUG has been in discussions
with TfL London Rail and their operator LOROL for over a year without any agreement to
take action apart from removing 18 seats from the trains to make more standing room.

TfL London Rail's policy is to provide new 8x2-car diesel multiple-units in 2009/2010 to
allow a 15-minute frequency service. TfL London Rail state that as the new trains will have
carriages that are 3m longer than the existing carriages, this coupled with the increase in
frequency will reduce overcrowding.

BGOLUG maintains that passengers cannot wait until 2009/2010 for more capacity and
that TfL London Rail were wrong to allow the existing fleet of diesel multiple-units to be
reduced from 8 to 6 units in November 2007.

BGOLUG argues that while additional diesel multiple-units should be sought to allow a 15-
minute frequency service now, a limited 15-minute frequency "high-peak" period service
could be introduced with existing resources immediately.

BGOLUG further argues that the new trains to be delivered in 2009/2010 should be
delivered as 3-car trains, as if 2-car these will be overcrowded as soon as they are
introduced. BGOLUG believe that TfL London Rail should be planning for 4-car trains from
2012 or a 10-minute peak frequency service, such is the existing latent demand for a
frequent orbital rail service in this part of London. In addition, there are several large
housing developments now being built or planned close by the line which are bound to
generate further passengers.

I hope therefore, that it will be possible to attend the meeting on Thursday, 16th October.

Yours faithfully,

Glenn Wallis
Assistant Secretary
Barking-Gospel Oak Line User Group
Dear Richard

I’m writing following your e-mail to Cat Hobbs. Thank you for the invitation to comment on the
committee’s inquiry into rail overcrowding

Campaign for Better Transport is a national organisation which campaigns for better
environmentally sustainable transport. As part of this we want a high quality public transport
network as an alternative to the car.

We did detailed work on rail overcrowding as part of our “Growing the Railways” campaign
which we ran to influence last year’s Rail White Paper. This included a table of the most
overcrowded trains in the UK. The London trains included some of those highlighted by the
Committee, but we found that overcrowding figures are only collected for London commuter
services; elsewhere there are even fewer statistics available.

We want to see investment in extra trains and line capacity to address overcrowding. The
Government’s planned investment in the next 5 years set out in the Rail White Paper last year
are welcome but we do not believe they go far enough, quickly enough. Key schemes such as
East London Line stage 2 and Lea Valley upgrading, which would have a big impact on
capacity in the areas they would serve, are not yet committed. In the longer term, Thameslink
and Crossrail should help, but other upgrading will be needed too, and planning for extra
capacity on the main lines into London needs to start now.

We are however keen to draw the Committee’s attention to an issue not mentioned in its
specification – fares. The Government’s position is that farepayers should shoulder more of
the cost of the railway, and particularly of upgrades, and taxpayers less: the White Paper last
year referred to an ambition to get farepayers to contribute 75% of costs rather than 50% at
present. As an example of the effects of this, South-Eastern commuters will be seeing fares
increases of 3% above inflation for the next few years to contribute to the cost of Kent local
services going to St Pancras on the Channel Tunnel Rail link. We believe that this approach
omits consideration of the wider benefits of rail investment of a high quality public transport
network for London as a whole. London’s rivals as world cities recognise these wider benefits
in some form, through various funding regimes (the Paris employers’ payroll tax that goes to
public transport is an example), as a result of which the fares paid are lower and investment
in capacity has traditionally been higher than in London. There is a broader issue too: in terms
of carbon emissions, we want to see greener modes cost less than others, so it should be
cheaper to take trains and buses than to drive. We think it is important that the Committee
recognises this and ensures that measures to tackle overcrowding do not result in higher
fares.

Ultimately, rail overcrowding can’t be addressed on its own. The fares and capacity on other
transport modes need to be looked at too, and we support the development of light rail
(including lower cost ultra-light rail) to act as an intermediate mode between buses and high-
capacity heavy rail and maybe thereby provide an alternative for shorter distance journeys
currently done by rail.

I hope these points are helpful

Yours sincerely

Stephen Joseph
Executive Director
Campaign for Better Transport
12-18 Hoxton Street, London N1 6NG
Tel: 020 7613 7715
Switchboard: 020 7613 0743

www.bettertransport.org.uk
                       ReeE I VEO         '--
                      1 ti hJli .
                          ".',. r ¿008                            Flrstt)Capital Connect
                 SECRETARIAT
                                                                                                          First Capital Connect
                                                                                                                Hertford House
                                                                                                             1 Cranwood Street
                                                                                                                         London
                                                                                                                     EC1V 90S



                                                                                              www.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk
          Richard Berry
          London Assembly
          City Hall
          The Queen's Walk
          London
          SE12A

          05 November 2008



          Oear Richard

          Transport Committee: Investigation into rail overcrowding
          This letter is written in response to the request from Valerie Shawcross AM, Chair of the
          Transport Committee, for input into The London Assembly's Transport Committee
          investigation into rail overcrowding in London.

          Crowding is one of the most serious issues that FCC must tackle and we share your
          concerns regarding the current levels of overcrowding. It is also one of the most
          important issues for our customers. However, we believe that the capacity schemes
          that we have been developing with OfT and Network Rail since the commencement of
          our franchise will deliver significant crowding relief both in the short and longer term. As
          summarised below, the progression of the Thameslink Programme wil be a major
          milestone in creating capacity on the Thameslink route. In addition, the recent OfT
          approval of the Peterborough and Cambridge Capacity scheme wil deliver a 15%
          increase in peak capacity on the GN outer route by early 2009. FCC is also currently
          developing three further capacity schemes in conjunction with OfT and Network Rail
          under the Of HLOS framework which, subject to successful development, wil also
          create considerable further capacity on the GN route and allow further growth on the
          network.

          In our response to your letter we have endeavored to address the points that have
          highlighted as of special interest, you have requested that our response is kept brief
          however should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us.

          Definition and measurement of overcrowding
          In gathering crowding data FCC employs a range of methods which are effective in
          showing trends and identifying services or routes which require particular focus, these
          include:
          o Annual Peak Period Passenger Census;
               FCC engages in the Annual Peak Period Passenger Census for all services working
               via London termini and nominated cordon points between 0700 - 0959 and 1600 -


                                                           1



$11"'1                Qell                                     First Capital Connect Limited. Registered in England number 5281077
member   ATOC          memhl'e
                       Mitglied     www.outwardbound-uk.org 50 Eastbourne Terrace, Paddington, London, W2 6LX
   1859. This census measures the maximum passenger numbers per train which
   enables the identification of individual load factors per service and is used to
   determine the Passengers in excess of capacity (PIXC) an industry benchmark;
o Passenger Load Determination equipment: and
   FCC has a number of train units fitted with the Passenger Load Determination
   system (PLO). Data collected by PLO is regularly down
                                                          loaded into a central
   repository and analysed to generate a far greater understanding of user profile by
   service. Since the commencement of the franchise 10 train units operating on the
   GN route have been fitted with this equipment. We also expect that all of the
   expected 23 class 377 units which will be introduced onto the Thameslink route will
   have PLO apparatus fitted as standard.
o Gateline data
   Gateline data is also available at a number of our stations which enables FCC to
   understand station throughput on a timeband basis.

Evidence of rail overcrowding
The Annual Peak Period Passenger Census provides the more comprehensive crowding
data and shows real overcrowding issues for many of FCCs service groups. The latest
survey undertaken in Autumn 2007 shows a significant increase in crowding particularly
on the Great Northern route. Growth on individual service groups particularly to London
fast services show the largest year on year increase of 8.5%. The PIXC levels on the
Cambridge fast services and AM Peterborough to London services now outstrip
crowding on the TL route.

  Service Group                               No. of trains                     PIXC
                                                                  2006          2007          Variance
                                                           29            5.6%          9.4%       +3.8%
  GN route - AM Peak
                                                           28            5.3%          9.0%       +3.7%
  GN route - PM Peak
                                                           45            4.4%          4.8%       +0.4%
  TL route - AM Peak
                                                           43            2.7%          1.5%        -1.2%
  TL route - PM Peak

This level of crowding is unsustainable if rail travel is to continue to grow, however
planned capacity schemes detailed below wil address this crowding.

 Steps taken to reduce overcrowding
 The crowding measures detailed earlier allow FCC to form a clear view as to the best
 deployment of resources and the optimal service profile to match demand. In addition
 FCC employ a number of industry recognised modellng techniques to review potential
 timetable alterations. CMS Passenger modelling system is used to analyse potential
 peak passenger movements should train service complexions change, and the MOIRA
 modelling system is used to identify business value should peak time adjustments occur.

 Since the commencement of the franchise in April 2006, at each timetable change FCC
 has some form of peak time enhancement targeted at easing overcrowding this has
 included increasing train formations, adjusted callng patterns to manage load
 distribution, and additional services where circumstances permit.

 FCC has actively worked to acquire further rolling stock particularly on the Thameslink
 route, in order to develop a strategy of increasing peak 4-car services to 8-car
 configurations on an incremental basis. During this period we have introduced 5
 additional class 319 units on the Thameslink route, and have increased 17 services from



                                                              2
4-cars to 8-cars. FCC wil take delivery of 23 new class 377 4-car trains as well as 6
class 319 units during 2009.

Planned capacity increases
As touched upon earlier we are confident that the successful development and delivery
of planned capacity schemes will address overcrowding on our network. The
Thameslink Programme wil transform the FCC network and once completed in 2015 wil
address the overcrowding on the Thameslink route. This £5.5bn investment programme
will see significant change including:
     o The operation of longer trains, increasing from 8-car to 12-car;
    o A more frequent service with a potential capacity of up to 24 trains per hour in
       central London (a train every 2-3 minutes);
    o New and redeveloped stations at Farringdon, Blackfriars and London Bridge;
    o More journey choices, up the three times the number of destinations; and
    o A brand new train fleet of next generation trains.

To address crowding on the Great Northern route FCC has developed four schemes
targeted at increasing peak capacity on both the GN Inner and GN Outer service groups.
These schemes have been developed closely with Network Rail and OfT and have been
included within Network Rail's ECML Route Utilsation Strategy (RUS) and Strategic
 Business Plan. In addition the OfT's Rollng Stock Plan announced in February 2008
 provides a clear roadmap for how, in the short term, the much needed rolling stock
 required to deliver these schemes will be allocated. FCC proposes that three of these
 schemes wil be delivered under the OfT HLOS framework and therefore they are subject
 to OfT approvaL.

 These schemes are:
 o Peterborough and Cambridge Capacity Scheme - stage one: This scheme has
    been approved by the OfT and work is underway to implement the scheme in May
    2009. The scheme will deliver a 15% increase in seats on services serving the Great
    Northern Outer route, 1,779 additional seats in the AM peak and 2,490 additional
    seats in the PM peak. The scheme delivers a reworked timetable which better suits
    demand and will see the introduction of five class 321 units which will be used to
    strengthen existing services to 8-car or 12-car length and to provide a number of
    additional services. A range of infrastructure upgrades are currently underway to
    ensure that the additional capacity can be accommodated including platform
     lengthening at Cambridge and Royston and power supply upgrades.

 o HLOS scheme 1 - Peterborough and Cambridge Capacity Scheme - stage 2;
     This scheme is intended to build on stage one. The main objective of this scheme is
     a program of platform extensions to allow for further targeted train lengthening to 12-
     cars in particular to Peterborough in the AM and PM peaks.

 o HLOS scheme 2 - GN Inner suburban services - Service strengthening; and
    This scheme wil optimise the use of a number of additional class 313 units, which
    we expect to inherit from London Overground allowing strengthening of existing
    services and some addition GN inner services.

  o HLOS scheme 3 - GN Inner suburban services - Increased Moorgate branch
     capacity.



                                              3
The objective this scheme is to increase the number of peak services running via the
Hertord loop or Welwyn Garden City to Moorgate. This will only be possible once
significant and complex infrastructure upgrades are carried out to enable the scheme
and to mitigate any potential adverse impact on performance.

    believe that these schemes will make Cl real difference to the
currently observed on these routes. Once these schemes are
able to how to accommodate

                         a useful overview for you however if there is any further
                            then do not hesitate to me know.

Yours
Richard,

Thanks for the email. I can give an example which is within the Thames Valley but outside of the
London boundary if that is ok.

The 0730 from Oxford originally had a calling pattern of Didcot and then Reading. There was an
alternative service from Swansea which stopped at Didcot at the same time and then went in front of
the Oxford service to Reading. It arrived in Reading just after a gap in service of around 10 minutes
and so picked up a large load at the station. The Oxford service then arrived in Reading and picked a
much smaller load - it left Reading with seats to spare. We took the Didcot stop out of the Oxford
service and ran it in front of the service from Swansea to Reading. This reduced the gap between
services at Reading and also supplied a train with enough seats to take a large load from the station.
 This then meant the following Swansea service picked up a smaller load and thus had an improved
environment on board. This change made better use of the seats available from Reading and improved
the spread of trains through the station at a very busy time of the morning peak.

Hope that helps

Regards

Richard

===========================
Richard Rowland
Regional Manager, London & Thames Valley
First Great Western
                           London Assembly Transport Committee
                          Inquiry into Rail Overcrowding in London

                           A submission from Invensys Rail Group

Introduction

Invensys Rail Group, part of Invensys plc, is a world leader in rail control and
automation systems. We operate through five regional businesses across the world
and have over 140 years' experience. We own Westinghouse Rail Systems, the
largest supplier of signalling systems in the UK and a leading international supplier. A
key focus for our organisation is the introduction of new and leading-edge technologies
to make rail travel safer, faster and more reliable.

We are pleased that the London Assembly Transport Committee’s inquiry into rail
overcrowding in London is examining not just the levels of overcrowding that occur and
passenger experiences of commuting into London, but also the important question of
what more could be done to tackle overcrowding. It is on this last point that the
comments in our submission are focused.

We are particularly keen to share our views with the Committee about the significant
impact that the deployment of new rail signalling and control technologies can have on
increasing railway capacity – both in London and beyond – and the need for well-
planned, long-term investment in these technologies to meet the growing demands
that are being placed on the capital’s rail network by steadily rising passenger
numbers.

Signalling and Railway Capacity

The Committee has identified a number of issues that cause problems of supply and
demand for rail services in London and contribute to overcrowding on the capital’s rail
network. These include population and employment growth and modal shift on the
demand side, and a lack of track capacity or train availability, unreliability of the
network, inappropriate train formations and timetables on the supply side.

Signalling lies at the heart of a safe and efficient railway, but modern signalling and
control systems can also make a material contribution to increasing the capacity of the
railway in a cost effective way – not least in locations such as London where there is
very limited space to build new track.

New signalling systems can boost the capacity of existing track by reducing headway
between trains and increasing travelling speeds. In addition, they can restore the capacity
of existing track lost through less reliable ageing systems – capacity which could be
maintained over the life of a new system with investment in intelligent infrastructure (for
example, the use of real-time on condition monitoring of critical assets such as point
machines to measure performance and take action before they fail to maintain capacity).
Furthermore, modern signalling technologies can help to save energy by allowing trains to
make more efficient use of existing track (e.g. by regulating the speed of trains more
effectively)..

The key point flowing from all of this is that there can be no real gain in capacity without
investment in signalling and control technology unless completely new line is built. Newer
trains will only run at the same headways and speeds as the existing trains without new
signalling. Longer trains cannot run without new signalling. And while some incremental
capacity gains will be generated through track renewal, all this will achieve without new
signalling is to restore the lost capacity from the existing system caused by slower running
on old track.

LA TransCom Rail Overcrowding Inquiry – IRG Submission 08/01/09                                1
Despite these clear benefits, the merits of investing in renewed signalling and control
systems for the existing rail network are too often overlooked as a primary driver in
improving the performance and reliability of the railway, in increasing the railway’s
capacity and efficiency and in reducing costs. It is this wider ability to gain genuine
operational value from a control system over and above traditional safety requirements
that is central to the long term performance of the railways and its ability to meet
growing demand in a capacity constrained environment.

Capacity Benefits of Investment in Signalling and Control Systems

Invensys Rail Group therefore commissioned Credo, the leading business strategy
consultancy, to undertake an analysis of the costs of different methods of increasing
capacity in the road and rail environments.

The study, which has been independently audited, compared the costs and capacity
increases of signalling investment to other forms of transport expenditure, in order to
assess the relative cost-effectiveness of various transport schemes in respect of
increasing capacity. It shows that investment in signalling and train lengthening
provide the most cost-effective solutions to increasing capacity – and by some margin.

Credo’s research compared the costs and capacity increases provided by a range of
real world transport infrastructure projects. A range of methods of increasing capacity
on the roads and rail, both in respect of commuter journeys, long distance journeys
and freight, were analysed to compare the incremental capacity increase for every
pound spent, measured consistently as [people per hour] / [£m per km].

The analysis found significant variation in capacity benefits across the different
schemes that were assessed; methods that increase capacity on existing infrastructure
were generally found to be more cost effective than new build of assets in the same
transport domain. Details of the capacity per £1m spent for each of the capacity-
increasing schemes covered in the study are set out in the Table 1 below.

Table 1: Capacity Increase, Costs and Capacity/Cost – Commuter and Long-Distance




Notes: The capacity for signalling (ERTMS) is incremental to Signalling (Traditional).
Historic road project costs have been used, rail projects are generally more recent or proposed (out-turn
costs) projects.




LA TransCom Rail Overcrowding Inquiry – IRG Submission 08/01/09                                             2
Credo's research also included an analysis of transport schemes in dense urban
environments, where options for new build capacity increases are particularly limited. The
findings further support the case for signalling investment.

Credo found that while the quantum of investment involved in metro investment (both rail
new build and signalling) is often high, the returns on that investment in respect of extra
capacity for each pound spend are huge in comparison to other transport schemes,
particularly for signalling investment.

Details of the capacity per £1m spent for the various schemes to increase capacity in
dense urban areas are included in Table 2. This shows that signalling investment gives
around four times the capacity gain for fixed investment when compared to rail new build
and approximately 50 per cent more capacity benefit when compared to new roads, even
if the cost of the rolling stock is included.
Table   2:   Capacity    Increase,   Costs    and    Capacity/Cost   –   Dense   Urban   Environment




The key findings of Credo’s study are that:

•   train lengthening and signalling upgrades offer the best economics over more
    infrastructure-based methods of increasing capacity
•   rail re-instatement is a more cost-effective way of adding capacity than new build;
    and
•   widening of existing infrastructure the most expensive form of capacity increase.

These findings are very relevant to London, given that physical space to develop new
rail or road infrastructure is much scarcer than in other parts of the country. Investment
in new signalling and control technology can make a significant contribution to
alleviating overcrowding by allowing trains to make more efficient use of existing track.

LA TransCom Rail Overcrowding Inquiry – IRG Submission 08/01/09                                        3
It is therefore vital that signalling upgrade and replacement forms a central part of
long-term plans to develop London’s rail network. A particular effort must be made to
bring future signalling technologies to market because, as is explored below, these
have the potential to significantly improve the performance of the network and reduce
costs.

Benefits of Future Signalling Technology

Technological innovation, especially in signalling and control systems, should play a
central role in the rail industry’s response to the challenges thrown up by increasing
pressure on the rail network, particularly in areas such as London where this is
particularly acute.

Signalling and control systems will over the coming years progressively move from
trackside into the train. Major technical advances are being made with signalling and
control systems which will result in costs coming down – potentially significantly – and
will enable in-cab control systems to provide wider operational, non-safety critical
applications such as fuel efficiency, asset tracking and passenger information.

A transition to in-cab signalling will result in costs moving away from the subsidised
funding of the track operator and towards the train operators who can take market
driven investment choices. Technological innovation with in-cab control systems has
the potential to transform the railway industry both from an operational point of view
and from a cost point of view.

ERTMS

The European Rail Transport Management System (ERTMS) is the foundation of the
next generation of in-cab signalling technology. While ERTMS represents an important
example of cab-based signalling it is not itself a product – rather, it is a set of technical
standards. At present, there are over 20 train control systems across the European
Union, each of which is stand-alone and non-interoperable. ERTMS will standardise
both the information and the means of transmission that trains automatically send and
receive to and from signalling control systems. The aim is to enable trains to run
across national boundaries seamlessly with a single interoperable signalling system.

At the heart of ERTMS is a new control-command system (ETCS) and new radio
control system for voice and data communication (GSM-R). The system encompasses
three levels – the introduction of level 1 essentially offers safety benefits rather than
capacity; level 2 offers capacity benefits alongside safety benefits; and level 3 involves
the train reporting its position, rather than relying on trackside equipment.

Improved safety and interoperability are only two of the many benefits that will be
delivered by ERTMS. A key benefit is increased capacity on existing lines. As a
continuous communication-based signalling system, ERTMS will allow a reduction in
the headway between trains which could enable up to 40% more capacity on existing
infrastructure. Furthermore, it will improve reliability and punctuality rates, enable trains
to travel at higher speeds and, given the movement away from trackside equipment, it
will ultimately bring down maintenance cost considerably.

Wider benefits of in-cab signalling include improvements in efficiency and emissions
levels. The computing power of these new signalling technologies will allow other
applications to be added to what are otherwise just signalling and train control
systems. For example, fuel optimisation controls, traction controls, passenger
information systems, onboard condition monitoring and asset management

LA TransCom Rail Overcrowding Inquiry – IRG Submission 08/01/09                                 4
applications can be incorporated, all of which can improve the reliability and
performance of the railways.

These advances in technology can have a major impact on the efficiency and
performance of the railways and can also help to drive costs down. More sophisticated
in-cab signal and control systems will ultimately provide a basis for operational
optimisation, and will therefore be of potentially major benefit to Train Operating
Companies.

ERTMS has yet to be implemented in the UK, with the exception of a Cambrian pilot
project. The Government’s intention is to start the roll-out of ERTMS on the Greater
Western and East Coast Intercity routes in 2014/15. Since the benefits that ERTMS
could generate for the rail network are potentially considerable, it is vital that this
implementation timetable is not delayed. The ERTMS agenda should be pushed,
starting with detailed analysis of the costs and improvements that the new standards
will offer over traditional signalling when implemented in high density areas such as
London.

Conclusion

Demand for rail travel is growing fast, and this trend can be expected to continue. Rail
capacity is running out on many parts of the network and costs need to come down.
Passengers and freight customers will demand increasing levels of reliability and
comfort. The biggest challenge facing the UK’s transport sector is movement in, out
and around London. Technology and innovation are central to addressing these
difficult challenges.

It is becoming increasingly clear that advances in signalling, communication and
control systems can have a very major role to play in addressing these issues.
Signalling technology will increasingly not simply be a safety driven function, but the
additional functions that in-cab signalling will provide will transform the type of railway
that we have today. Innovation will drive down cost and drive up standards. Control
systems will be multi-functional, not simply controlling the train from a safety point of
view, but from a performance and operational point of view too.

Enormous opportunities to boost capacity exist in new signalling technology. But to
really harness the full potential that these emerging technologies can offer will require
a less rigid approach to planning. In particular, a long term planning strategy needs to
be developed that enables all players in the industry to take investment decisions that
reflect not just the short term horizons of the government’s funding cycles and the Rail
Regulator’s Periodic Reviews, but the longer-term term investment cycles necessary to
bring new products to market and to unlock on-going innovation.




INVENSYS RAIL GROUP
8 JANUARY 2009




LA TransCom Rail Overcrowding Inquiry – IRG Submission 08/01/09                               5
London Assembly Transport Committee investigation into rail overcrowding –
written evidence submission from London TravelWatch.

1.    Introduction

1.1   Thank you for the opportunity to submit evidence to your scrutiny meeting on
      the above subject. This is subject which has exercised London TravelWatch
      and it’s predecessors for many years. In 2003 we were asked to submit
      evidence to a House of Commons Select Committee on Transport which
      looked at this subject in the context of crowding on all public transport modes.
      What we said in our evidence to that enquiry still has (unfortunately) much
      relevance to the issues that you are trying to address in your scrutiny. I have
      therefore taken the liberty of attaching our evidence to that enquiry as an
      Appendix to this paper, as well as adding the following additional comments:-

2.    Is overcrowding a source of concern to users?

2.1   There is substantial evidence from a number of sources that crowding on rail
      services is a major concern to passengers. Firstly, the National Passenger
      Survey (NPS) produced by Passenger Focus found in the spring 2008 quarter
      that overall satisfaction on a National basis with sufficient room to sit/stand
      was 62% satisfied or good and 22% dissatisfied or poor. For London and
      South East operators those figures were 60% satisfied or poor and 24%
      dissatisfied or poor. However, these figures hide wide variations between
      individual operators of London commuter services with for example Chiltern
      Railways scoring 75% satisfied or good and 13% dissatisfied or poor in this
      category, and London Overground scoring just 46% satisfied or good and
      36% dissatisfied or poor. These compare quite markedly with results for
      Airport service operators such as Heathrow Express and Gatwick Express
      (both 87% vs. 3%), and Inter-City operators such as National Express East
      Coast (73% vs. 11%), Virgin Trains (65% vs. 18%), and operators with mixed
      services such as First Great Western (63% vs. 22%) and National Express
      East Anglia (58% vs. 25%).

2.2   Other recent surveys such as Passenger Focus and London TravelWatch’s
      joint project with the Department for Transport on the passenger aspirations
      for new rolling stock on the Thameslink route, and Passenger Focus’s
      research on passenger aspirations for the new South Central franchise both
      highlight that passengers have an ongoing concern in these areas and want
      these concerns addressed by both the industry and government.

2.3   Network Rail through its Route Utilisation Strategies (RUSs) has also been
      identifying areas where demand for rail services is or is likely to exceed the
      ability to supply. There is a very strong link between the train operating
      companies that have a lower score in the NPS of satisfaction with sufficient
      room for all passengers to sit/stand, and those places that the Route
      Utilisation Strategies have identified that there are capacity constraints that
      need to be addressed – c2c and National Express East Anglia with the
      Greater Anglia RUS, First Capital Connect with the East Coast RUS, Brighton
      & Midland Main Lines RUS’s and South London RUS, London Overground
      with the Cross London RUS, Southeastern and Southern with the Brighton
      Main Line RUS and South London RUS.

2.4   The industry, both in terms of commercial operators and government
      authorities, has in place substantial mechanisms to both plan for and
      implement solutions to current and potential crowding on the network. These
      include the High Level Output Statement (HLOS), Regional Planning
      Assessments (RPAs), Route Utilisation Strategies (as mentioned above) and
      the specification of individual franchises. London TravelWatch has been able
      to play a full part in these processes in recent years, and because of our
      knowledge gained through casework has had some notable successes in
      identifying crowding issues and promoting solutions e.g. the Cambridge /
      Peterborough Capacity Study on the East Coast Main Line / First Capital
      Connect franchise, overcrowding on the North London, West London and
      Barking – Gospel Oak lines, and a number of issues in South London. In all of
      these cases we have been able to persuade the industry to invest in either in
      improved infrastructure, additional trains or revamped timetables which has
      provided some relief to existing crowded services and been able to
      accommodate the growth in usage of the network.

      However, one of the major features of the rail network since 2002 is that the
      growth in usage has been far faster and greater than that predicted by the
      industry’s existing modelling techniques. Even at the present time (October
      2008) franchise operators are still reporting substantial growth in passenger
      numbers - when a downturn in the economy might normally signal a reduction
      in passenger numbers because of job losses (which in turn would lead to a
      reduction in crowding). As an example First Capital Connect have reported an
      8% increase in passenger numbers in the first quarter of 2008. The net result
      of this is that often even when extra trains or carriages are added at peak
      times these are often very busy or full within a few weeks or months of their
      introduction, and the trains that they are meant to have relieved similarly
      revert to their previous crowded status.

2.5   The level of crowding on the railways may be being suppressed at peak
      times. There is evidence for example in South London that there is
      substantive suppressed demand for travel at peak times, which may mean
      that passengers are using other modes such as car or bus to avoid crowding
      on the rail network. In addition trains either side of the peak – called the
      shoulder peak in industry terminology, have become substantially busier than
      previously as users themselves often make decisions to travel at different
      times for better comfort or lower fares. As a result companies have improved
      services for example between 1900 and 2030 on Mondays to Fridays, by
      operating trains that would normally be only used for a limited period at the
      peak over a much longer part of the day (e.g. improvements to Southeastern
      services from Cannon Street and National Express East Anglia from Liverpool
      Street in early mornings and mid evenings). In addition, services on orbital
      routes or operating out of central London to centres such as Croydon,




                                         2
      Bromley or Wimbledon also become busier and experience the same
      crowding problems as those going into central London.

3.    What additional measures could be put in place to mitigate the effects of
      crowding?

3.1   The major methods of reducing crowding are of course items such as
      increasing train frequency and length, and associated improvements to
      signalling and junction capacity, and the length of platforms at stations. These
      generally are very expensive and capital intensive means of addressing the
      issue. Of course schemes such as East London Line phase 2, the Thameslink
      upgrade and Crossrail, as well as schemes where funding needs to be agreed
      such as Chiltern Metro, West Hampstead Chiltern Interchange and Dartford
      platform lengthening will have substantive benefits in terms of reducing
      crowding which we support. However, other considerations might be as
      follows:-

3.1.1 Making Empty Coaching Stock movements available to the public. In general
      terms there are very few (if any) movements of this kind made in the direction
      of travel where crowding is at its most acute, as operators tend to maximise
      the use of their trains at peak times. Operators do however, make some use
      of ‘empty’ movements in order to get trains back to a suburban station earlier
      than if they had to carry passengers so that the train could then perform
      another peak hour working. In practice (except for routes where multiple
      central London stations are served and where such a train could perform a
      ‘distribution’ function within central London such as Waterloo East – London
      Bridge) making these trains available for public use would not make a
      significant contribution towards a reduction in crowding. In practice, we
      recognise that operators such as Southeastern have made many such trains
      publicly available in recent years. The implementation of the Thameslink
      upgrade will from 1st March 2009 (phase 0) and in subsequent stages also
      reduce the number of such ‘empty’ movements as trains will increasingly
      cross central London without terminating. However, we would always
      encourage operators to constantly review their ‘empty’ mileage to see if it can
      be added as a useful public service.

3.1.2 The allocation of space within the timetable and on trains to First Class
      passenger accommodation and/or premium cost services. Most rail corridors
      in London have at least some or the majority of services where some trains
      either fulfil a niche premium rate service such as Heathrow Express or
      Gatwick Express linking the capital’s main airports with the city centre or have
      trains which contain first class accommodation. In the case of Gatwick
      Express the Brighton Main Line Route Utilisation Strategy attempted to deal
      with the competing demands of Airport passengers and crowded main line
      and suburban rail services in the peak. The conclusions of this RUS were
      subject to a wide ranging public debate, because they sought to help reduce
      overcrowding by combining in the peak the needs of airport and main line
      passengers – a conclusion that was extremely controversial in some quarters.
      A new timetable comes into effect on the 14th December 2008 implementing
      the somewhat controversial outcomes of this process. It should be expected
      that given the congested nature of London’s rail network that a similar issue
      will almost certainly arise in future.




                                          3
      First Class accommodation on trains is however an area where there may be
      scope for exploring whether this is a useful part of the transport ‘mix’ in the
      context of crowding. Information supplied to London TravelWatch by ATOC in
      March 2008 showed that whilst First Class travel accounted for just 1% of all
      travel to and from London (3% nationally), the accommodation provided by
      operators varied from 0% of all seats (Chiltern and c2c who have chosen not
      to have such accommodation), to up 20% of all seats on Inter City services
      with inter-urban and suburban services accounting sometimes allocating 14 or
      15% of all seating accommodation to First Class. Please see Appendix B
      (London TravelWatch internal note on this subject). This is further
      compounded by the use by some train operating companies of trains with
      First Class accommodation on services which are not advertised as having
      such, or the fact that the standard of First Class accommodation varies widely
      between operators. In addition there is little knowledge within the industry as
      to who are the passengers use First Class and why they choose to do so.
      London TravelWatch has suggested that it might wish to commission research
      into this area. However, the resources required for such research (if it is to
      meaningful) are quite considerable and in view of the wider context, it would
      be useful for other bodies to be involved. We would ask that the Transport
      Committee should consider whether it might be willing to be involved with
      such research and commit additional funding to allow this to be carried out.
      Such research, as noted above, would plug a ‘knowledge gap’ within the
      industry and also help with making a judgement as to whether First Class
      accommodation should be withdrawn or reduced in order to alleviate crowding
      in Standard class. (Note First Great Western plan to remove First Class from
      their London area suburban trains by 2011).

3.1.3 Expand orbital routes and shoulder peak services. As noted above a feature
      of the growth of rail services in London over the past 20 years is the increase
      in usage of orbital routes and shoulder peak services. Orbital routes in
      particular (such as the West London line and East London line (when
      reopened) have the potential to allow passengers to make cross-London
      journeys without the need to travel via central London. Consideration should
      be given as to whether any additional links could be created with a minimum
      of investment.

3.1.4 Use of fares and ticketing policy to encourage passengers to use less
      crowded services. Perhaps one of the most controversial methods of
      attempting to control crowding issues has been the use of the price
      mechanism to incentivise passengers to travel at off peak times. This has
      been tried in various guises over the years with varying degrees of success.
      The most basic incentive is that for journeys after 0930 Monday to Friday an
      “Off-peak” fare for the day of travel is available, which is cheaper than an
      “Anytime” fare. Other schemes have included for example introducing
      restrictions on the use of off-peak tickets for longer distance journeys in the
      period between 1630 and 1900 on First Capital Connect and National Express
      East Anglia. The introduction of “Super off peak” fares after 1200 on South
      West Trains and Chiltern, Southeastern and c2c offering for a period ‘early
      bird’ season tickets only valid on trains arriving in London before a certain
      time (but these have now been withdrawn). These schemes have met with
      varying degrees of success, and have often been very unpopular with
      passenger, particularly if they have resulted in a significant increase in the
      price of their journey. The evening peak hour is significantly different from the



                                          4
      morning because unlike in the morning it coincides with the peak of leisure
      traffic at ‘going home time’, whereas in the morning the peak time of departure
      for leisure traffic is significantly later than that for journeys to work or
      business. The Mayor is proposing to introduce from 2nd January 2009 a fares
      regime on all TfL rail modes a charging system based on higher fares
      between 0630 and 0930, 1600 and 1930 Monday to Friday than at other
      times. It is likely that National Rail services will also follow suit when Oyster is
      introduced to their network later in 2009. London TravelWatch has expressed
      a view that the whilst the introduction of cheaper fares between 0930 and
      1600 is welcome, the case for introducing an evening surcharge is less
      proven with little or no evidence that the introduction of such restrictions has
      made any significant material contribution to demand at these times.
      However, in the case of travel in the morning peak there is concern that the
      introduction of a 24 hour validity to Freedom Passes (for people with
      disabilities and those over 60) could increase overcrowding in the morning
      peak, because of the removal of the financial incentive not to travel at this
      time.

4     Conclusions

4.1   Crowding has always been a contentious issue on the London rail network,
      with conflicting demands to either provide for or to suppress the level of traffic
      that presents itself.

4.2   It is recommended that the London Assembly continues to support agreed
      projects such as East London Line phase 2, the Thameslink upgrade and
      Crossrail as these will provide significant additional capacity, but also to
      encourage the industry to continue to re-examine the best use of existing
      capacity through the Route Utilisation Strategy processes, and to make better
      use of orbital rail routes and capacity at the ‘shoulder’ peaks. In addition
      London TravelWatch would ask the Assembly to make serious consideration
      of the suggestion that research should be carried into the use made of First
      Class accommodation to add to the industry’s knowledge base.


Appendix A – Evidence submitted to the 2003 Transport Select Committee

Eve Samson
Clerk to the Transport Committee
Committee Office
House of Commons
7 Millbank
London SW1P 3JA

Dear Ms Samson

Select Committee inquiry : overcrowding on public transport

Thank you for inviting us to submit a memorandum in connection with the Transport
Committee’s forthcoming inquiry into overcrowding. This is a topic which has long
been of concern to the London Transport Users Committee (LTUC) and its
predecessors, and we welcome the recognition of its seriousness which is implicit in
its selection by your Members as an issue deserving of their scrutiny. In the



                                           5
astonishingly short interval allowed for receipt of submissions, it has not been
possible for us to compile as comprehensive a review of the evidence as we would
ideally have wished. But we hope that the following points will be of relevance and
value.

1.     Is overcrowding a source of concern to users?

1.1     “Overcrowding” is an elusive concept, though everyone knows it when they
encounter it. What passengers regard as intolerable overcrowding may be seen by
commercial transport operators simply as efficient asset utilisation. On the railways,
it has no formal definition, because there is no legal limit to the number of people
who can be carried on a train (or be present in a station), if they choose to force their
way on board. And short of requiring all seats to be reserved, which is hardly a
practicable option on busy commuter routes, there is no means of imposing one.
Buses are subject to restrictions on their carrying capacity, which are set by law and
(because they have fewer entrances and exits than trains) these are enforceable by
their crews. But there is no systematic surveillance of the degree of compliance with
these, and/or of the extent to which their capacity falls short of demand. On both
modes, the operators’ “conditions of carriage” specifically exclude any entitlement for
ticket holders to be provided with a seat, except when one has been reserved, or to
be accommodated on any particular journey.

1.2     Complaints about overcrowding per se do not dominate the caseload of
representations which the LTUC receives from members of the travelling public in
and around the capital. Regular users have long since come to regard it as endemic
on the busiest parts of the network at the busiest times of the day and week. Their
failure to complain is doubtless conditioned by an awareness that it is not a problem
susceptible to an instant solution which an intervention on the part of LTUC with the
relevant operator is likely to secure. But when it occurs most acutely, it is often a
symptom of other deficiencies in the planning and delivery of the service, such as
delays, cancellations and (in the case of trains) short formations. So it is commonly
mentioned in that context, where the primary purpose of the complaint is to secure
redress for a specific journey failure.

1.3    The Strategic Rail Authority commissions a twice-yearly poll of users’
satisfaction with the quality of service offered on the National Rail network.
Respondents are asked to rate their satisfaction with the overall journey experience,
and with eleven individual service attributes, on a five-point scale from “very poor” to
“very good”. LTUC regularly monitors the findings, and reports these in terms of the
net satisfaction rate, i.e. the excess of the proportion awarding positive ratings over
the proportion awarding negative ratings (so the maximum possible range of values
is +100% to –100%).

1.4     The most recent results available at the time of drafting this letter were those
for the seventh “wave” of the survey, conducted in the spring of 2002. The overall
net satisfaction rating given by rail users in the London area was +55%, compared
with +60% nationwide. Londoners were also more dissatisfied with all but one of the
eleven individual facets of the service which are covered by the survey. In the case
of “amount of seats/standing space” (the nearest approximation to a specific
question on overcrowding), their average net satisfaction rating was +27%,
compared with +38% nationally. Only two other service attributes were awarded
even lower scores : “value for money” (-3%) and “upkeep and repair of trains”
(+15%).


                                            6
1.5     Not surprisingly, users of longer distance services were generally more
content with this facet of performance than users of local trains in the London and
south east area, because seats on longer distance journeys can usually be reserved
in advance (and for some types of ticket, this is automatic). “Amount of
seats/standing space” received a net satisfaction rating of +61% from passengers on
the longer distance trains to and from London (i.e. the former InterCity routes), but a
rating of only +32% from the users of the London and south east network. And
within the latter group, there were wide variations between individual train
companies. While Gatwick Express and Chiltern Railways achieved scores of +86%
and +51% respectively, the equivalent ratings for Connex South Eastern and
Thameslink were only +21% and +23%.

1.6    Passengers declaring themselves to be “regular users” were also asked a
more specific question about their experience of seat availability. Of these, 31%
stated that there are always seats available, and 41% that this is usually so. Of the
16% who declared that they usually stand, 7% said that their trains were crowded
and 5% that they were very crowded. The residual 10% reported that their
experience varied. But these data are not disaggregated by operator, route or time
of travel, and therefore give no direct insight into the location or duration of the
problem if it occurs.

1.7      London Underground also conducts regular satisfaction surveys amongst
what it is wont to describe as its “customers”. The methodology differs from that
used for the Strategic Rail Authority’s polling. For example, respondents are
interviewed face-to-face on completion of their journeys rather than being asked to
fill in questionnaires during the course of them, the content and wording of the
questions varies, the range of issues covered is not identical, and satisfaction is
recorded on a scale from 0 to 10 (with average scores scaled up to a range from 0 to
100). So direct comparisons cannot be made between the reported satisfaction
levels of the users of the two networks, although many will be the same passengers.

1.8    The Underground satisfaction survey covers 19 separate attributes of the
service. In the most recent period for which data have been published, July to
September 2002, the overall rating awarded by users was 75. The ratings for train
crowding and platform crowding were, respectively, 71 and 73, ranking 15th and
11th out of the 19 attributes (the lowest score, 64, being given to train cleanliness).
By this measure, therefore, London Underground is clearly regarded by its users as
serving them less adequately in relation to crowding than in relation to the majority of
the elements of its service.

1.9     A similar survey is conducted on behalf of London Buses, although again
there are differences in methodology which make direct numerical comparisons
invalid. In the most recent period for which results are available, July to September
2002, bus users’ overall satisfaction rating was 79 (on a scale from 0 to 100). The
score for “level of crowding on bus” was 77, placing it 11th out of the 17 service
characteristics covered, the lowest score being given to reliability (66).

1.10 Users of London’s bus stations are also polled. In the same period, the
overall rating was 67, and the rating for the level of crowding was 70, placing it 10th
out of 22 elements covered. The lowest rating in this survey was for the condition of
toilets (44).




                                           7
1.11 Taken in isolation, these figures may have little apparent meaning. But the
overall message they convey is that, for any of the modes of travel cited, users are
more likely to be dissatisfied with the level of crowding they encounter (which they
may therefore regard as overcrowding) than they are with the quality of service
experienced overall, and with the majority of the other individual attributes about
which they are asked.

1.12 What these surveys do not reveal, however, is the relative importance
attached by users to the various attributes of the services they encounter, and
therefore the relative weighting they give to the need for improvement in each
aspect. An insight into the importance of understanding this was offered by a recent
survey of Public attitudes to transport in England 2001, sponsored by the
Commission for Integrated Transport. Respondents were asked to rank a number of
possible areas of improvement according to the level of priority they believed each
should receive. Bus users ranked overcrowding sixth out of nine service elements
listed, while rail users ranked it third and Underground users ranked it first. This
indicates that the issue which the Select Committee is addressing is one with high
salience in the eyes of those who are affected by it.

1.13 It is also worth bearing in mind the comparative ratings awarded by the
Government’s People’s Panel to the service quality delivered by a sample of retail
services (on a scale from 0 to 100). Energy and communications utilities received
net satisfaction ratings of over 80, and high street banks or building societies were
rated at 78. The equivalent figures in the transport sector were 44 for London
Underground, 37 for local buses and 28 for train companies.

1.14 The clear impression which emerges is that public transport in general is
regarded as offering a much lower quality of product than other commercial services,
and that amongst people who do use it, the level of crowding ranks high on the list of
service attributes they dislike. If the Government’s ambition that trains and buses
should recapture a larger share of the total transport market is to be fulfilled (and
LTUC fully endorses this as an objective), the problem of overcrowding will have to
be addressed, because it is a major deterrent to the use of public transport on the
part of those travellers who have a choice. The irony of the position is that if the
Government’s policy is successful, then at least in the short term the problem is likely
to grow worse, because overcrowding is a symptom of undercapacity at the times
and in the places of peak demand, and a modal shift away from other forms of
transport will simply exacerbate the situation. But enlarging capacity is expensive,
particularly on the railways, and offers a low rate of return on the investment required
if the additional space provided is fully used for only a short period each day.


2.     Where does overcrowding occur?

2.1    In the absence of any objective definition of overcrowding, it is impossible to
describe its incidence precisely. But on some parts of the public transport network,
loading levels are recorded, and the resulting data can be used to obtain a partial
insight into the extent of the problem.

2.2   The operators of all franchised National Rail services (which constitute the
vast majority) on the national rail network are required under the terms of their
contracts with the Strategic Rail Authority to “use all reasonable endeavours to
ensure that sufficient capacity is provided on each train … to carry without excessive



                                           8
overcrowding all passengers intending to travel on such a train …” But the term
excessive overcrowding is not defined. The contracts merely set an “initial number
of vehicles” as a benchmark, and operators face financial penalties if the number of
vehicles included in their train plans (timetables) persistently falls below this.

2.3      There is no systematic tracking of passenger numbers relative to train
capacity on the longer distance services. The relevant train companies are perfectly
willing to carry standing passengers for long journeys if they have not reserved seats
or if all seats have been taken, although their rolling stock appears to be designed on
the assumption that such a situation will seldom if ever arise, because no specific
provision is made for the presence of standees. If standing passengers travel in the
aisles of the saloons, they will obstruct movement along the train, and will find only
vestigial handholds to support them. If they cluster in the vestibules, they will find no
grab rails, perches or other means of support at all (and will probably find conditions
extremely draughty). Anecdotally, we are aware that travel in such circumstances is
a common event, and has become more so where older types of train (typically loco-
hauled stock) have been replaced by newer ones (typically multiple units, with fewer
carriages). But in the absence of any centralised monitoring and reporting of train
loadings, we have no means of quantifying the precise distribution, frequency or
scale of the problem.

2.4     Most local rail services in and around London and the south east are subject
to more exacting requirements in the form of “load factor specifications”, related to
the notional carrying capacity of each type of train. This varies according to the
configuration of each type of rolling stock, depending on the number of seats and on
the available standing space, but in broad terms it equates to about 110% of the
seating capacity of slam-door trains and to about 135% of the seating capacity of
sliding door trains. First class accommodation is disregarded. In addition, it is
assumed that no passengers should have to stand for involuntarily for more than 20
minutes, so on trains where scheduled intervals between stations exceed this, the
notional capacity is equal to the number of seats.

2.5     All with-flow peak period trains entering or leaving London are monitored once
a year, usually in the autumn (on dates selected to avoid known fluctuations in
demand, e.g. school holiday periods). The peak period trains are defined as those
arriving between 0700 and 0959, and those departing between 1600 and 1859. The
count is carried out by observers located on platforms, because the level of crowding
is often such as to make it impracticable to conduct counts on board, and only a
small number of trains are yet fitted with automatic counting equipment (which
detects variations in the load borne by the suspension system). There is thus an
element of estimation in the results, but their accuracy is regarded as sufficient to
identify the routes and trains on which crowding is most acute. The monitoring sites
are selected to reflect the point of maximum loading on each route, which is normally
on the approach to the London terminus, though it may be further afield if there is
substantial level of transfer to/from the Underground at an intermediate station (such
as Finsbury Park). Some sections of line are omitted where there is a high level of
interchange between services for short-distance feeder trips, e.g. between Charing
Cross and London Bridge, where many users simply board the first train to depart
regardless of its ultimate destination.

2.6   These counts are used to calculate the number of “passengers carried in
excess of capacity” (PIXC). The total number of such passengers on any trains
where the notional capacity is exceeded is expressed as a percentage of the total


                                           9
number of all passengers on the relevant route in the relevant direction.
“Undercrowding”, i.e. unoccupied spaces on trains with fewer passengers than their
notional capacity, is disregarded because it is assumed that such spaces are not
pertinent to the needs of “excess” passengers on other trains.

2.7    It should be noted that PIXC counts take no account of whether or not trains
are actually running in their planned formations (or at all). So carrying 800
passengers on a train with a notional capacity of 1000 would not result in a breach of
the PIXC target even if in reality half the carriages are not provided and only 500
spaces are actually available. Similarly, no breach would occur if one of two trains
each with 500 places and 400 passengers is cancelled and all 800 are carried on the
other. Operators are penalised financially by means of other incentive regimes, if
they fail to provide the planned number of spaces (and trains), but for PIXC
monitoring purposes the phantom spaces on missing carriages are still deemed to
be present. This means that although these data can be used as a theoretical
indicator of the incidence of crowding, they necessarily understate its true
prevalence.

2.8     The published PIXC totals are averages based on all trains to or from London
on a particular operator’s network, taken over the whole of the peak period.
Loadings on individual trains and individual routes may be very much higher or
lower. But because operators cannot directly control the number of passengers who
may choose to travel on any particular train, they are not subject to penalties if
individual services are excessively crowded. Instead, they are required to make
“reasonable endeavours” to match their resources to passenger demand, if and
when the recorded PIXC rates exceed the SRA’s “threshold” levels for their network
as a whole. These thresholds have been set at 4.5% in any one peak, or 3.0% in
both peaks combined. The more exacting threshold value for the combined peaks
reflects the fact that the evening peak is more extended than that in the morning,
with passenger numbers during the peak three hours about one fifth lower, and
pressure on available capacity is consequently less acute (partly because, for
example, schools open at around the same time as shops and offices in the morning,
but close earlier in the evening).

2.9    The most recent PIXC census for which results are available is that conducted
in the autumn of 2001. The published results (shown in the accompanying table) are
expressed purely in percentages, to facilitate inter-operator comparisons, and the
SRA does not disclose the actual number of passengers affected. In the case of the
operators with larger or more complex networks, sub-totals for individual “inner” and
“outer” route groups are provided, although the thresholds still apply only to the
average for the entire company. Results in excess of the applicable threshold value
are shown on a shaded background.

2.10 The table reveals that three of the ten London area operating companies to
which load factor specification applies exceeded their PIXC thresholds in 2001 in
respect of the morning peak period (Silverlink, South Central and South West
Trains). The same operators plus a fourth, Thameslink, were in breach of the
combined peaks threshold. These thresholds were also exceeded by the combined
load factor performance of the London and south east network taken as a whole.
And First Great Eastern would also have been in breach, in respect of its inner area
services, if the thresholds applied to route groups separately.




                                          10
       Operator/route group                AM peak         PM peak         Both peaks
       c2c                                 0.3%            0.6%            0.5%
       Chiltern                            2.4%            0.6%            1.6%
       Connex                              3.2%            1.3%            2.3%
       Inner                               2.8%            0.3%            1.7%
       Outer                               4.4%            3.6%            4.0%
       First Great Eastern                 3.7%            1.6%            2.7%
       Inner                               6.0%            2.4%            4.3%
       Outer                               1.5%            0.8%            1.2%
       Silverlink                          8.1%            3.4%            5.9%
       Inner (orbital)                     15.9%           8.9%            12.7%
       Inner (radial)                      2.2%            0.0%            1.1%
       Outer                               3.5%            0.0%            1.9%
       South Central                       11.2%           1.0%            8.9%
       Inner                               10.5%           0.7%            6.5%
       Outer                               12.5%           1.7%            8.0%
       South West Trains                   6.3%            2.5%            4.6%
       Inner                               6.5%            2.1%            4.6%
       Outer                               5.9%            3.4%            4.7%
       Thames                              3.3%            1.6%            2.5%
       Inner                               2.8%            2.9%            2.9%
       Outer                               3.6%            0.5%            2.2%
       Thameslink                          4.3%            3.9%            4.1%
       Inner                               9.7%            8.6%            8.2%
       Outer                               3.0%            3.2%            3.1%
       West Anglia Great Northern          2.3%            1.6%            2.0%
       Inner                               1.8%            1.7%            1.8%
       Outer                               2.7%            1.4%            2.1%
       London and south east : total       5.0%            1.7%            3.6%

2.11 The SRA’s bulletin On Track, in which these results are reported, records that
“there are now more than 50 additional trains running into London every morning
compared with the figure in 1996, when 809 services ran.” But the report does not
indicate whether or not total train capacity has grown by the same proportion, or how
this growth compares with the change in passenger numbers. In fact, at the
aggregate London and south east level, since the final year of BR operation the
PIXC result has risen by 2.4% for the morning peak and 0.5% for the evening peak.
Nor does the bulletin mention any particular steps that the operators which are in
breach of the planning thresholds are being required to take to mitigate the situation.

2.12 There are no published data on the incidence of crowding at stations on the
National Rail network. Operators are not required to carry out any census of station
usage.

2.13 London Underground has adopted a statement of its Customer Service
Delivery Standards, in which it aims to “identify the constituents of a customer-facing
service and define the quality of delivery required in each service area to meet
customers’ needs and priorities”. One of the underlying themes is stated to be “the



                                          11
aim to minimise potential stress by offering a pleasant, safe and calm travel
environment.” The standards are very much more comprehensive and prescriptive
than any requirement placed on the franchised train companies, but are purely
aspirational in character as they have no mandatory force.

2.14 The standards lay down a minimum average service interval of five minutes
over the central part of the network, and go on to state that “service frequencies and
patterns, when new or refurbished rolling stock is being introduced, must be
sufficient to obviate the need for any customer to stand for more than 15 minutes.
Seating for at least 1/6 of the maximum capacity of each car must be provided. Any
major upgrade should take account of the fact that the existing standard for train
loadings is often unavoidably exceeded on some sections, and should have
congestion management as a key objective.” An internal reference manual,
containing a commentary on these standards, notes that “Crowding is a complex
issue, influenced by service volumes, train capacity, reliability, and demand.
Significant improvements in the on-train crowding penalty will only be possible
through major upgrade projects.” The requirement for seating to be provided for
only 1/6 of passengers does not include perch or tip-up seats, and relates to the
theoretical maximum crush-loading capacity of the trains, rather than anything which
would be tolerable in normal operating conditions. It is noteworthy that significant
congestion relief is seen as attainable only in the context of “major upgrade projects”,
rather than through any change in day-to-day operating practices.

2.15 London Underground conducts regular monitoring of train loading levels
during weekday peak periods, the results of which are expressed as a statistic
showing the percentage chance of being on a train with a given ratio of passengers
to seats. Prior to the creation of Transport for London, these data were routinely
published. This appears no longer to be the case, although they are available on
application. This table shows the results for the period July to September 2002.

                               % chance of being on a train with :
                                                 at least 1 person      at least 2 people
       Line                    all seats full    standing for each      standing for each
                                                 1 sitting              1 sitting
       Bakerloo                18                4                      0
       Central                 69                15                     1
       Circle &                84                45                     4
       Hammersmith
       District                23                  12                   2
       East London             n/a                 n/a                  n/a
       Jubilee                 68                  9                    1
       Metropolitan            16                  8                    1
       Northern                72                  7                    0
       Piccadilly              50                  4                    1
       Victoria                54                  19                   1
       Waterloo & City         95                  83                   4
       All lines               52                  16                   1

2.16 The table shows that at peak times the majority of Underground passengers
are required to travel standing. But the figures are averages which do not
necessarily reflect the situation on the most heavily used sections on each route, and
this can fluctuate markedly from minute to minute depending on the evenness of the


                                          12
intervals between trains. Assuming that passengers enter platforms at a constant
rate, any significant delay will cause excessive loading on the next train, and this in
turn will result in under-loading of the train following that. The distribution of platform
entry and exit points can also cause uneven loadings between individual carriages
on the same train.

2.17 There are wide variations between lines, but it should be noted that average
journey lengths differ markedly depending on the geography of the route. What may
be tolerable on the Waterloo & City line, for a maximum journey time of four minutes,
is unlikely to be acceptable on the District or Metropolitan lines where journeys can
last more than an hour. The design of the rolling stock varies between the lines, so
that on the Circle and Hammersmith & City lines (where loadings are high but most
journeys are short) there is a much higher proportion of standing space to seats, and
for any given passenger loading, the percentage chance of all seats being occupied
is automatically higher. These data also take no account of the turnover of spaces
within trains. If the number of passengers alighting at a succession of stations is
equal to the number boarding, the aggregate loading level will be unchanged, but
any individual passengers obliged to stand involuntarily at the start of their journeys
will not necessarily remain standing for the whole of the trip. Although London
Underground has set a target maximum of 15 minutes, the actual length of standing
times experienced is not reported.

2.18 In relation to stations, London Underground stipulates that “Minimum
dimensions and station capacity requirements are described in station planning
standards. These are to be observed in respect of ticket halls, route ways (including
stairs) and platforms. Capacity limitations at stations are kept under review and
plans developed to address changes in demand.” These standards have been
applied at the very limited number of new stations which have been constructed in
recent years, notably on the Jubilee line extension from Green Park to Stratford,
whose spaciousness is in striking contrast to most of the rest of the network. But
London Underground still has many stations built to the standards in use a century
ago, and it is the lack of access and egress capacity, as much as a lack of train
capacity, which is the primary cause of congestion and delay for a large proportion of
its passengers.

2.19 Regular users of stations such as Victoria and Oxford Circus have long since
become accustomed to the need for “station control” to be imposed at busy times,
when access to the station is denied until congestion at platform level eases. In the
straitened financial circumstances in which the organisation has been compelled to
operate in recent years, little or no funding has been available to address this. While
staff are enjoined “to encourage passengers to move to less crowded sections of
station platforms” by means of notices and announcements, at the busiest stations at
the busiest times there is little or no under occupied platform space available.
Published details of the outputs which will be required of the “infraco” consortia
which will become London Underground’s partners under the Government’s PPP
plans for the network are scarce, but it appears that the anticipated capacity
enhancements relate primarily to the train service rather than to stations. If the PPP
is successful in raising service quality, and in generating additional demand as a
result, the under-capacity of the busier stations will become ever more acute.

2.20 At one time, London Buses regularly monitored and published statistics
relating to “the percentage chance of boarding the first bus to arrive.” This survey
was abandoned several years ago, and there is now no systematic tracking of the


                                            13
incidence of crowding on buses. Loadings are checked as part of the “key points
survey” conducted on all major routes, but this is only undertaken at 18-month
intervals. At other times, the organisation appears to rely on ad-hoc feedback from
users and/or operators, plus occasional “mystery traveller” reports, to alert it to the
extent of under-capacity both on vehicles and at bus stations.

3.     Does overcrowding matter?

3.1     Self-evidently, uncomfortable travel conditions are a deterrent to the use of
public transport. Those who have the option of travelling by other means will do so,
unless rail or bus offer substantial advantages in terms of time and/or cost. The
persistence of overcrowding on parts of the public transport network indicates that at
busy times it is catering for a largely captive market, at least in the short term, and
that those who endure these conditions do so because the perceived value of the
journey exceeds the perceived cost, including the element of discomfort. The fact
that well over 80% of people entering central London every day do so by rail or bus
(a higher proportion than in virtually any other major city in an OECD country) does
not imply that they regard the experience as satisfactory, let alone enjoyable, but
simply that there is no practicable alternative mode available. Even if central
London’s roads could accommodate more people travelling by car, there are no legal
or affordable parking spaces available for their use. Providing extra capacity (in the
form of tracks, vehicles and staff) is costly if it is only required for a small proportion
of the time – many trains on the London and south east network already make only
one fully laden journey each way per day. So there is little or no commercial
incentive for operators to take mitigating action.

3.2     When passengers complain about overcrowding, they commonly assert that
they regard it as a threat to their safety, particularly on the railways. Trains are built
to carry as many people as can be physically accommodated on them, and their
braking and suspension systems are designed to function correctly under maximum
crush-load conditions. There are no instances known to LTUC of crowding having
led directly to an accident. So such concerns generally relate to the number of
people potentially at risk in the event of an accident (such as a collision, derailment
or fire), particularly if they are standing, and to ease of evacuation or escape.

3.3     This concern has found expression from time to time at inquiries arising from
major railway accidents. For example, the “Hidden Inquiry” into the Clapham
Junction collision in 1988 took evidence to the effect that “the severity of injury, or
the risk of fatality, was no greater for standing than seated passengers.” The report
concluded, however, that “the fact is inescapable that the higher the number of
passengers on a train, the higher the number of casualties is likely to be in absolute
terms.” It therefore contained a recommendation that “BR shall ensure that overall
train loading criteria are achieved. The Department of Transport and BR shall keep
the criteria under review.” In practice, the criteria then in use were the same as the
threshold values subsequently incorporated into the franchise specifications set for
privatised operators, as set out in paragraph 2.8 above. On substantial parts of the
network, they were never achieved by BR and they have not been achieved by its
successors either.

3.4     The inquiry which followed a buffer stop collision at Cannon Street in 1991
commissioned some computer modelling work on the relative levels of risks faced by
seated and standing passengers. Its broad conclusion was that in the case of
collisions at speeds exceeding 15 mph, both groups would be likely to be thrown



                                            14
around uncontrollably, and would be equally exposed to a number of potentially
injurious impacts. At lower speeds, standing passengers might be at greater risk
because they were more likely to lose their balance and fall in an uncontrolled way.
But much would depend on the rate of deceleration and whether the movement of
the train gave any forewarning of the impending collision. The inquiry concluded that
although there were no safety grounds for prohibiting passengers from standing on a
train, “care needs to be exercised in the way standing passengers are conveyed”. It
noted in particular that “with a free choice many passengers will choose to travel in
the front coaches even if this means having to stand” in order to be able to exit more
quickly on arrival at the terminal station. The report therefore contained a
recommendation that BR should examine what measures could be introduced to
distribute passengers more evenly along the train, such as “better advice to
intending passengers of the available space…, arranging access points to platforms
away from the front of trains, and making arrangements at terminal stations … to
remove the perceived advantage to those at the front of the train.” Whatever
examination BR may have made in the light of this recommendation does not appear
to have led to any subsequent action.

3.5     The “Cullen Report” into the Ladbroke Grove collision in 2000 also touched
briefly on these issues. It noted approvingly that the train company First Great
Western was “considering the possibility of dissuading passengers from moving
forward in the train shortly before arrival at the terminus” but made no specific
recommendation on the matter. Like the Clapham Junction and Cannon Street
inquiries before it, the Ladbroke Grove inquiry heard suggestions that seat belts
might be fitted to trains, but like them it declined to endorse such a proposal. The
safety benefits were open to question, and even if they were real, it was felt to be
impracticable to make the use of belts obligatory on trains used for very short
journeys. To the extent that any real difference existed, seated passengers were
already at less risk than those obliged to stand (or who chose to do so).

3.6     The available evidence from accidents prior to that date was reviewed in a
1999 report for the Health & Safety Executive on Implications of overcrowding on
railways. This confirmed that “in higher-speed collisions, whether a passenger is
seated or standing makes little difference to the overall severity of injuries
sustained”. Although seated passengers may be less likely to sustain serious
injuries in lower speed collisions, “in overcrowded conditions … the situation may be
somewhat more complex”. This was because while a large number of standing
passengers may have a cushioning effect which would protect them against some
forms of injury (such as those sustained by hitting carriage fittings or other
passengers), it was possible that other injuries such as head-to-head collisions
would be more prevalent. Overall, the report concluded that “there is no evidence to
suggest that overcrowding per se is a safety issue.” But it should be noted that this
was purely a desk study, and no original research was undertaken in the course of it.

3.7    The HSE report endorsed the view that any policy requiring all passengers to
have seats in order to travel, and to remain in them while the train is moving, would
be impossible to implement and police. It also noted that if “excess” passengers
were removed and put on an extra train, there might be “an increased risk to the total
population of rail travellers simply due to the addition of the extra trains required to
deal with the excess passengers.” This comment is based on the apparent
assumption that there may be a positive relationship between the intensity of traffic
on a railway and the level of risk faced by its users. This is a highly debatable issue,
giving rise to complex questions about (e.g.) the performance of train control



                                          15
systems and/or the rate of asset deterioration and maintenance, which are outside
the parameters of this letter. What can be said with some certainty, though, is that if
the effect of overcrowding on railways is to displace some travellers onto other
modes, then – except in the case of those who might go by air – the net effect will
almost certainly be to increase the overall level of casualties, because all other
modes entail significantly higher levels of risk.

3.8     Perhaps surprisingly, none of these reports addresses the extent to which
ease and speed of escape or evacuation in the event of an accident is likely to be
affected by the number of passengers on board - possibly because none of the
actual accidents reviewed involved trains that were particularly heavily loaded. The
only recent incident of which LTUC is aware in which this issue has arisen in practice
occurred on the Underground’s Victoria line in July 2001, when some 4000
passengers were trapped in three trains held in a small-bore tunnel for up to 90
minutes as a result of malicious interference with train equipment. The only
ventilation on such trains is provided by the movement of the trains themselves, so
rapid build up of body heat can occur in heavily-loaded carriages held stationary for
long periods. Because this incident took place on one of the hottest days of the
year, ambient temperatures were high, and 17 people were taken to hospital
suffering from the effects of heat exhaustion. But trains do not have to be heavily
crowded, or in tunnels, for similar problems to arise. Much of the newer rolling stock
on the main line railways has air conditioning, and no open able windows in the
passenger saloons. When electric trains are held stationary because of power
failures, the air conditioning is rendered inoperative, as the demands it would place
on emergency battery supplies are excessive. The result, on warm days, is that
conditions on board can rapidly become extremely uncomfortable. The industry
appears to have no solution to this problem.

3.9    The HSE report makes some mention of research which has been conducted
into other effects which overcrowding may have, of a psychological and physiological
nature, which manifest themselves through their impact on the health of those
affected, rather than their physical safety – though they may have indirect safety
consequences if, for example, they lead to an increased level of violent conduct.
Although these effects have been studied in the behaviour of crowds in other
contexts, very little research appears to have been undertaken into the health effects
of the various sources of stress to which public transport passengers are routinely
exposed. The current, very restricted state of knowledge in this field is demonstrated
by a recent (and as yet unpublished) study of Rail passenger stress and health,
commissioned by the Rail Passengers Council from the Institute of Work, Health and
Organisations at the University of Nottingham.

3.10 LTUC is not aware of any published work relating specifically to the risks
associated with congestion at stations. Under paragraph 71 of the Reporting of
Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995, station operators
are required to notify the HSE of incidents of serious congestion, defined as “Any
case where planned procedures or arrangements have been activated in order to
control risks arising from an incident of undue passenger congestion at a station
unless that congestion has been relieved within a period of time allowed for by those
procedures or arrangements.” But the term “undue passenger congestion” is not
defined, and the annual report of the HSE’s Chief Inspector of Railways makes no
mention of the frequency with which such cases are reported, or of the
circumstances which give rise to them.




                                          16
3.11 The Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 1984 require
maximum seating and standing capacities to be set for buses and coaches, and it is
an offence to allow these to be exceeded. LTUC understands that (except in the
case of buses operated with conductors) the primary purpose of these regulations is
to ensure the stability of moving vehicles. A report by the London Accident Analysis
Unit on Public service vehicle accidents in Greater London showed that in 1991
standing passengers accounted for 42% of all reported casualties to bus and coach
users. Since it is likely that on most buses the proportion of standees is less than
this, it is reasonable to conclude that the risk of injury is higher for those who are
standing than for those who are seated. It is our impression that the frequency of
claims made by passengers against operators for minor injuries sustained in the
course of journeys, e.g. as a result of sudden braking, has been increasing. But it is
not clear whether this is the result of a higher incidence of such events, or a greater
propensity on the part of passengers to seek compensation as a result of them. If
fault cannot be shown to lie with the driver, or with another road user who is required
to carry insurance - e.g. where the bus is forced to brake to avoid colliding with a
pedestrian, cyclist or animal – the risk is likely to be uninsured and any victim to
remain uncompensated.

4.    How can the problem of overcrowding be addressed?

4.1    There are no simple or cheap solutions, particularly on the railways. Trains
cannot be made wider, or higher (to allow double deck operation), without immensely
costly alterations being made to railway infrastructure – platform edges, tunnels,
bridges and overhead wiring. They can be made longer, but this often necessitates
the lengthening of platforms (and sometimes sidings), which is also expensive and
sometimes physically impossible. Their maximum speed is set by such factors as
the curvature of the line, the capacity of their traction units, the number of powered
axles, and (in the case of electrified lines) the available power supply. On routes
with closely-spaced stations, such as the Underground and much of National Rail’s
London and south east network, the effective overall speed is set by the spacing of
the stops and the maximum tolerable rates of acceleration and deceleration.

4.2    On-board capacity is controlled by the number and distribution of seats
provided, and the ease of circulation within the train. Metros and suburban railways
in other countries typically have only a limited number of seats, arranged
longitudinally, and it is assumed that most passengers will travel standing. The
removal of seats is not popular where passengers have been accustomed to having
them, but a recent consultation exercise by Connex suggested that many of its
passengers would accept this if it could be shown that, in the short term, it was the
only means of allowing them to continue to board the train of their choice. Wider
aisles and a more generous provision of handrails encourage passengers not to
cluster in vestibules, thus making better use of the space available. Wide inter-
carriage connections (similar to those found on articulated trams and buses) would
encourage passengers to move between carriages, distributing themselves more
evenly along the train, and would have the incidental benefit of mitigating concerns
about personal security at times of low usage. But the rail industry in Britain has
been reluctant to embrace this feature, although it is commonplace on metros
overseas. This appears to be due to concerns about cost, crashworthiness, the
spread of smoke in the event of fire, and the difficulty of draught-proofing cabs when
passages are created through them to allow units to be coupled.




                                          17
4.3      In the past, all trains were provided with guards’ compartments which were
also used to carry passengers’ luggage and cycles. Some also carried buffets on
board. Capacity has been increased by removing these, albeit at some loss of
passenger amenity. On the National Rail network, first class accommodation is
provided at the discretion of the operators, and excluded from PIXC calculations. It
has lower seating density, and (typically) a lower occupancy rate. One operator,
Chiltern, has recently decided to discontinue it. Underground trains do not have
toilets on board, but generally these have been provided on National Rail services,
except on some trains used only on shorter-distance inner-suburban routes. Connex
has canvassed opinion on the option of eliminating them from some new rolling
stock, to enhance capacity, with the proviso that the quantity and quality of toilet
facilities on stations would be increased instead.

4.4     On high-capacity routes with frequent stops, “dwell time” at platforms
represents a significant element of journey time, and thus of route capacity. The
time required for boarding and alighting is a function both of the total number of
passengers carried, and of the length of their journeys (i.e. the numbers using each
station). As trains become more crowded, movement within them becomes more
restricted, and passengers take longer to enter and leave, thus prolonging each stop
– especially if some are obliged to alight involuntarily simply to allow others behind
them to exit. The rate of boarding and alighting can be made faster by providing
more (and wider) doors and larger vestibules, but this is necessarily achieved at the
expense of seating space.

4.5     Even if the planned capacity of a service is sufficient to meet demand, any
shortfall or irregularity in its delivery can result in a rapid build-up of overcrowded
conditions. Poor reliability plays a major part in exacerbating the problem. In the
period from April to June 2002, 0.9% of planned longer distance trains to or from
London did not run, nor did 1.2% of those on the London and south east network.
But, in addition, 20.9% of longer distance services reached their terminus more than
ten minutes late, and 15.6% of those on the London and south east network
terminated more than five minutes late. On the Underground, the overall incidence
of delay is measured by “excess waiting time”, i.e. the average amount by which
passengers’ actual waits exceed those they would experience if the service ran
exactly as planned. In the year 2000-01, the average waiting time experienced
across the network was 3.2 minutes, but the excess element of this was 0.8 minutes.
In other words, passengers were typically obliged to wait one third longer than they
should, if the full level of service was operated, and delivered on time. The causes
of this unreliability are outside the parameters of this discussion, but they are a
significant contributory factor in the overall incidence of crowding.

4.6      Even if additional rolling stock is available, or can be provided, it is not
necessarily possible to increase the overall frequency of service, since this is
governed by the capacity of the route – which is in turn governed by such factors as
the spacing of signals, the number of stations and platforms, and the number and
layout of junctions and crossovers. In general, the more complex and variegated
the service pattern, the lower the number of trains that can be run. The greatest
utilisation of capacity is usually obtained where all trains run between the same
destinations and observe the same stops – a situation which is rare in London, even
on the Underground (because higher frequencies are operated over the sections
with greater levels of passenger demand). Requiring fast and slow trains to operate
on the same tracks (as occurs on parts of the National Rail system) invariably
reduces the frequency of both. And timetabling services at or close to the theoretical



                                          18
limit of capacity is unwise, because it eliminates the necessary “recovery” margin
which is essential if any delay to one train is not to result immediately in a cascade
effect which repercusses on the timekeeping of all following trains. Indeed,
experience on parts of the Underground has shown that overall reliability – and thus
evenness of passenger loadings between trains - can be improved by removing
trains from the timetable at the busiest times, rather than adding them, when the
planned schedule has proved itself to be over ambitious.

4.7     If demand is not evenly distributed between trains on a route, passengers can
be reallocated from overcrowded to under crowded trains by varying the stopping
pattern, so that not all trains serve the same stations. This is very effective in
redistributing loads (provided that passengers do not change their choice of stations
in response). But it makes local journeys between intermediate points more difficult
if they are no longer served by the same trains, and is a technique which is therefore
best used sparingly and selectively.

4.8      Finally, fares can be adjusted to “choke off” excess demand, or to redistribute
it to times and/or routes when and/or where pressure on capacity is less. This
technique has long been employed by the railways, e.g. by offering discount fares for
off-peak travel. In the era of BR, prices were deliberately raised as a device for
curbing the unwanted growth of peak period traffic. But fears that privatisation might
lead to excessive profiteering by train operators catering for a captive market caused
a price capping regime to be introduced for certain key fare categories, including the
standard class season tickets which are most likely to be used by commuters
travelling at the busiest times. Pegging these fares to a level below the prevailing
rate of price inflation, and imposing additional fares reductions as a penalty for poor
reliability, has made the cost of rail travel cheaper than might otherwise have been
the case. This is a welcome development, from the users’ perspective, where the
system has sufficient spare capacity to cater for the additional demand thus
attracted. In principle, we favour any policies designed to make the use of the
railways more attractive. But they have a perverse effect where overcrowding is
already acute. In the London area, the differential pricing of bus and rail travel has
had some limited success in diverting trips from rail to bus, but the two modes are
not serious alternatives for any but fairly short journeys, and the zonal pricing basis
of the Travelcard (which has largely replaced point-to-point season tickets) means
that it cannot be used to deflect demand from one route to another.

4.9    On the buses, there are far fewer constraints to increasing capacity in line
with demand, either by enlarging the size of vehicles or increasing their frequency.
Both the volume and usage of bus services in London are growing steadily at
present. But reliability remains problematic: on the higher-frequency routes, actual
average waiting times are currently about 40% longer than planned. The principal
obstacle to increased reliability is the traffic environment in which the bus service is
required to operate. The Mayor’s London Bus Initiative is designed to achieve much
more extensive bus priority measures on major corridors, coupled with more
systematic policing and enforcement. But there is a looming shortage of depot
space to handle the growing size of the bus fleet, and in a buoyant labour market the
cost of recruiting and retaining sufficient staff of the required calibre (both in
operating and engineering roles) is rising, particularly as housing costs escalate. As
routes are re-tendered, operators’ bids are rising steeply, and with fares frozen in
money terms the subsidy requirement is escalating at a rate which the Greater
London Authority may find difficult to fund. Unless the planned increase in capacity
can be sustained, however, particularly in the central area, the success of the


                                           19
Mayor’s congestion charging strategy may be compromised – because this
acknowledges that there is no realistic prospect of being able to handle many
additional peak period travellers on London’s railways, and if the strategy is
successful in inducing some diversion of travel away from cars, much of this demand
will have to be met by the bus network.



Yours sincerely



Suzanne May
Chair


Appendix B

First Class Travel on the rail network in London (London TravelWatch internal
note)


1.1   Background

1.1.1 Division of passenger accommodation on trains by class of accommodation
      has been a feature of railway operations since they began early in the 19th
      Century. First Class has always been seen as premium product which allowed
      passengers to travel in greater comfort than in either 2nd, 3rd or latterly
      Standard class. Originally, most trains would have included some type of First
      Class accommodation however since the 1960’s the trend has been to see a
      reduction in this or in the case of inner suburban Metro type services its total
      withdrawal.

1.1.2 Today First Class accommodation is provided in the London TravelWatch
      area on:-

      2098 Inter-City type services per day Monday to Friday (1672 Saturdays and
      1204 Sundays) that generally run non-stop between their London Terminal
      and a major town some distance from London e.g. Reading / Stevenage /
      Milton Keynes / Colchester. This sort of service will in most cases offer ‘added
      value’ in the form of items such as special reserved lounges at stations, all
      inclusive meals service, free refreshments and newspapers or internet
      access. Lack of capacity on these services, whilst there may be isolated
      cases requiring additional resources is not as pronounced as longer distance
      regional or stopping services. Typically, around 20-30% of seated
      accommodation on these services is First Class.

      1450 Longer distance regional services per day Monday to Friday (1370
      Saturdays and 841 Sundays) that generally run with a limited number of stops
      between their London Terminal and the London TravelWatch boundary e.g.
      South West Trains services between London Waterloo, Clapham Junction,
      Surbiton and Woking (continuing to various destinations in South West
      England). The ‘added value’ on these services is usually (but not always) in
      the form of more comfortable seating and also the ability for passengers to get


                                         20
       away from the busier parts of standard class. It should be noted that in most
       cases the amount of First Class accommodation provided is a relatively small
       proportion of the total capacity provided. Many of the services in this category
       experience overcrowding problems at peak times in standard class, and so
       there may be a case for examining whether best use is being made of
       available capacity. Services to London’s airports typically have around 10-
       15% of seated accommodation as First Class, whilst other routes have
       between 4 and 14% as First Class. It is notable that a number of operators
       such as c2c and Chiltern do not offer any First Class accommodation at all on
       their services.

       449 Local stopping services per day Monday to Friday (341 Saturdays and
       239 Sundays) within London. e.g. Most First Great Western local services
       within London (these account for over half of this total). These services are
       very limited in number and are usually provided as a result of sharing rolling
       stock with a longer distance regional service. It should be noted that in most
       cases the amount of First Class accommodation provided is a relatively small
       proportion of the total capacity provided. The exception is the large number of
       First Great Western local services, where every service except Heathrow
       Connect has such accommodation.

1.1.3 In addition, there are often occasions when services which formally do not
      have First Class accommodation are formed of trains which do have this. In
      this case passengers are not charged any additional fare for travelling in the
      first class as the train is deemed to be ‘declassified’. This type of operation is
      very prevalent in the case of Train Operators who to make the most efficient
      use of rolling stock often inter-work longer distance services with local
      stopping services. Operators who do this on a large scale include Southern,
      First Capital Connect and South WestTrains. However, this temporary
      declassification (which is not usually advertised as such on board) may lead
      to abuse of the facilities or conversely to overcrowding in Standard Class
      because passengers are reluctant to use the First Class area because they
      do not know that it is available and fear being charged an additional cost if
      challenged by a member of staff. It also has an impact on the company’s
      loading data, because PIXC (Passengers in excess of capacity) targets are
      related to the volume of Standard class accommodation provided, and if a
      train not booked to carry first class does so, it is officially short-formed.

1.2.1 Types of First Class tickets. Operators in addition to offering open and single
      tickets, in many cases offer discounted tickets at off-peak times either by
      offering an upgrade from Standard Class for a small sum (at weekends for
      example) or in the case of Inter-City operators using yield management
      systems discounted advance purchase tickets as a means of balancing
      loadings between Standard and First Class accommodation. This can in some
      cases result in First Class advance purchase fares being cheaper than
      Standard Class open tickets.

1.3.1 Enforcement of First Class areas. In the case of Inter-City services generally
      these are rigorous enforced by means of the reservation system and also by
      staff on board. For the other types of service such enforcement is not as
      rigorous and in many cases will often be on the basis of self-regulation. This
      means that the possibility for abuse increases.




                                           21
1.4.1 Usage of First Class. ATOC have kindly supplied us with the information on
      the sale and usage of First Class in 2007 in the London TravelWatch area. It
      should be noted that in the case of journeys wholly within London First Class
      travel represents less than 1% of all journeys and for journeys to and from
      London around 3% of all journeys. London TravelWatch will need to seek
      further permissions from ATOC for the public release of this information in
      more detailed form.

1.5.1 Oyster and Smartcard implications. At present there is no provision for First
      Class travel on Oyster, however the system is capable of calculating
      discounts for passengers whose card is loaded with particular characteristics,
      and so in theory it should be feasible for a premium to be similarly loaded for
      a journey where a supplement may be payable.

2     Discussion

2.1   It is clear that there is a case for providing First Class facilities and services
      on Inter City services, where there is a clear distinction with Standard Class
      and where passengers are offered real added value for the additional cost
      that they incur, and where it is rigorously enforced.

2.2   In the case of longer distance regional and stopping services there may be
      less justification for providing First Class especially if at peak times the
      capacity it uses could be better used for Standard Class accommodation.
      However, an exceptional circumstance might be the case of services to and
      from Airports where passengers are making the journey by rail as part of a
      longer journey. Stopping services within the Greater London area almost
      certainly have no need for two classes of travel to be offered. Most perform
      broadly the same task as the Underground, on which First Class
      accommodation was abolished many years ago.

2.3   As noted in 1.1.3 above there are a number of circumstances where operators
      choose to use vehicles with First Class accommodation on services which are
      advertised as Standard Class only. Historically it was the practice of the
      railway industry to place notices on the carriages affected to that effect.
      However, this is no longer the case. The practice of interworking stock
      between different types of service does however bring significant benefits, for
      example Southern at the December 2007 timetable change were able to
      reduce overcrowding on the West London Line by the clever use of units used
      on London – Sussex long distance regional services.

3     Equalities and inclusion implications

3.1   The premium nature of First Class travel obviously means that people on low
      incomes may not be able to afford to use this facility.




                                           22
      Network Rail response to the London Assembly Transport Committee
                         Inquiry into rail overcrowding

Introduction

   1. Network Rail is a 'not for dividend' company which owns and operates Britain's
      railway infrastructure, which includes the tracks, signals, tunnels, bridges,
      viaducts, level crossings and stations - the largest of which we also manage.
      Profits are entirely reinvested back into the rail network.
   2. Network Rail is responsible for managing London’s rail infrastructure and
      delivering a safe, reliable and efficient railway, which is absolutely critical to the
      city’s sustainable growth as well as the daily lives of millions of Londoners.
   3. Network Rail is a key partner in delivering projects such as Thameslink, Crossrail
      and other smaller projects across London and we are committed to work with the
      Assembly, Mayor and Transport for London to address capacity and
      overcrowding and deliver an effective transport system for passengers in
      London.

Overview of key infrastructure projects in London

   4. Rail travel in and out of the capital has grown and will continue to grow. In order
      to meet the travel demands of an ever-increasing population, Network Rail is
      investing in an unprecedented programme of infrastructure projects and station
      improvements in the capital. These infrastructure projects will help lead the
      recovery of the economy and give London the capacity it needs:

          •    Thameslink – the £5.5bn overhaul of this important north-south route.
          •    Crossrail (east-west) – the biggest civil engineering project in Europe.
          •    Station developments at locations such as King’s Cross, Waterloo,
               Euston, London Bridge, Paddington, Farringdon and Blackfriars –
               delivering longer platforms, enabling longer trains with more seats for
               passengers to run through London.
          •    Olympics – supporting new transport developments including the
               modernisation of Stratford station and the ultra-fast Olympic javelin
               services along HS1 from St Pancras.
          •    East London Line phase 1 – supporting TfL in delivering this project
               through enabling works and asset protection.
          •    Access for All - delivering a 10-year Government programme of station
               accessibility enhancements. Works are already underway at several
               stations across London, including Lewisham, Orpington, Balham,
               Kingston, Herne Hill and Streatham Hill. Decisions on station selection
               and prioritisation are being made by the Department for Transport (DfT).

Thameslink

   5. The Thameslink Programme tackles the reasons for overcrowding identified in
      the Committee’s scoping paper. Specifically the Thameslink project seeks to:
            •   A more than four fold Increase in overall capacity, enabling the
                introduction of more and longer trains through London.
            •   Reduce overcrowding on Thameslink and other commuter services.
            •   Reduce overcrowding on the Underground.
            •   Enable introduction of new cross-London services.
            •   Facilitate dispersal of passengers from the Channel Tunnel Rail Link at St
                Pancras.
            •   Reduce the need for interchange between main line and underground
                services.

   6. By 2015 Network Rail’s Thameslink investment programme will deliver the rail
      infrastructure needed to provide improved reliability and increased capacity on
      services into central London.

   7. Key outputs of the Thameslink Programme:

            •   From March 2009 new interim train service during major construction
                2009-2011.
            •   Up to 15 trains (8 cars) per hour through the core – 8 trains per hour
                currently.
            •   From December 2011 reliability strengthening and infrastructure to enable
                new timetable to be put in place.
            •   16 trains per hour through the core, 12 cars delivered in time for the
                Olympics.
            •   From 2015 – complete Thameslink train service. 24 trains per hour
                through the core, 12 cars, many more destinations.

Crossrail

   8. Network Rail is making a £2.3bn investment in upgrading train lines around the
       capital, a key element in delivering Crossrail.
   9. The Crossrail project is set to revolutionise transport in the capital. Linking
       Maidenhead to the west of London and Shenfield to the east, it will connect
       commuters to the City, Canary Wharf, the West End and Heathrow Airport, using
       mainline trains and a 21km tunnel under the centre of the City.
   10. Main construction will begin in 2010, and when it does, it will be the largest civil
       engineering project in Europe and will make traveling in the area easier and
       quicker, reducing crowding on London’s transport network.
   11. Network Rail is responsible for the design, development and delivery of the
       works outside the central tunnel. Much of the work will take place on active lines
       and stations, so it is essential that the project is completed with minimal
       disruption to passengers and freight companies.
   12. Network Rail’s role in construction will include:

            •   The western part of the route will be electrified including substantial re-
                signaling along the whole of the route.
            •   Managing the tunnel spoilage – circa 2 million m³.
            •   Timetable remodeling.
            •   Station rebuilds including Abbey Wood, Ilford, Romford and Ealing
                Broadway.
          •   Paddington – major reworking of platform and interchange between the
              new Paddington Crossrail station and mainline platforms.
          •   Platform extensions at over 20 stations along the route.

Investment in Waterloo Station

   13. Waterloo is one of the busiest stations on the network. Already operating close
       to capacity, passenger numbers are projected to grow by 20% in the ten years to
       2017.
   14. In the short-term we are currently finishing works, ready in December 2008, to
       allow platform 20 of the Waterloo International Terminal (WIT) to be taken back
       into service in 2009.
   15. In the medium-term funding has been allocated in Control Period 4 (CP4 – April
       2009 to March 2014) to extend platforms on the route and at Waterloo to
       accommodate 10-car trains; this is in order deliver a 13.8% increase in service
       capacity on routes into Waterloo and a 13.3% increase in capacity at Waterloo
       Station during the morning rush hour in the years to 2014. It is anticipated that
       achieving this will involve the use of Waterloo International Terminal (WIT).
   16. The longer-term strategy is to consider how to upgrade the station to
       accommodate at least 12-car rolling stock, which will require more extensive
       infrastructure improvements and funding – it is likely part of this will need to be
       raised through commercial development.

Redevelopment of King’s Cross Station

   17. The redeveloped King’s Cross station will provide additional capacity for the
       millions of people who currently use the site each year. In addition to three times
       more concourse space, an additional platform will be built enabling more trains to
       use the station each day, while catering for an additional 10 million more
       passengers.
   18. Through a close working relationship with London Underground (LUL), the new
       station is being built to be seamlessly integrated with the new ticket hall, and the
       domestic and international terminal at St Pancras. Upon completion, the site will
       become the most well-connected transport interchange in the Europe.

Enhancements

   19. In order to address the substantial increase in passenger demand for train
       services in London and the South East, Network Rail has identified a number of
       measures to make effective and efficient use of railway and to develop additional
       capacity on routes into and out of the capital. These include:

          •   10-car suburban train roll out by 2014: this investment programme will
              increase commuter capacity with longer trains and platform lengthening
              initiatives.
          •   Capacity enhancements, e.g. Thameslink.
          •   Upgraded station facilities – Waterloo, Kings Cross, London Bridge and
              Victoria plus a number of smaller stations across London and the South
              East have been earmarked for National Stations Improvement
              Programme and/or Access for All funding.
          •   We have also recently opened a new modular station at Mitcham
              Eastfields.

Periodic Review and Control Period 4

   20. The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) has just published its determination of
       funding for Network Rail for the next 5 year rail regulatory period known as
       Control Period 4 (CP 4) which begins in April 2009.
   21. The determination sets out the outputs that Network Rail will need to deliver in
       CP4 and the revenue that Network Rail will receive from access charges and
       other sources.
   22. Network Rail will be publishing our CP 4 Delivery Plan by the end of March 2009
       and this will set out the outputs we plan to deliver, consistent with the final
       determinations.
   23. If requested Network Rail would willing to give the Committee an update in April
       2009 on the Delivery Plan for 2009-2014 and how it affects London.
   24. The ORR is expected to start the planning process for Control Period 5 (April
       2014 to March 2019) by the end of 2009.

Electrification and new lines

   25. The ORR has not set aside extra funding for electrification in CP4 but it allows
       flexibility if additional funding is secured.
   26. The Transport Secretary has set up a National Networks Group chaired by the
       Rail Minister, Lord Adonis, which will look at the case for electrification and high
       speed and report back in 2009. Network Rail is part of this group.
   27. In addition Network Rail is conducting a ‘new lines’ study, which will look,
       amongst other things, at the potential for high speed.

Route Utilisation Strategies

   28. In order to make the best use of existing rail capacity and identify where and
       when additional capacity is required, Network Rail produces Route Utilisation
       Strategies (RUS). RUSs are central to the forward planning activity of the rail
       industry.
   28. The freight RUS, the Network RUS and 10 of the other RUSs are relevant to
       London. Network Rail works closely with TfL on all issues affecting London in the
       RUSs to ensure a consistent approach to capacity, demand and forward planning
       issues in London.

For further information contact: Tijs Broeke, Public Affairs Manager, Network Rail,
Kings Place, 020 335 67528, Tijs.Broeke@networkrail.co.uk.
Dear Richard,

As discussed yesterday, please find the response to additional questions below.

     • How many trains per hour through London Bridge will there be by December 2015?
Thameslink Routes will see an increase to 18 per hour in peak times – and those trains will be
up to 12 carriages in length (up from the current maximum of 8 carriages). 12 car trains on all
Thameslink services and many of the others will see a major increase in passenger capacity
into the station and central London.
     • What will be the impact of the developments on the number of platforms in use at
         London Bridge?
Current plans are that the total number of platforms will remain unchanged (15) but the layout
will change so that there will be 9 through platforms (up from the current 6) and 6 terminating
platforms (down from the current 9.
     • What will be the impact of the development on the number of peak services
         terminating at London Bridge?
The impact of the final development at London Bridge on terminating services will be as
agreed with the South London Route Utilisation Strategy - i.e. 20 trains per hour in the low
level (terminating platforms), a reduction of about 30%. However, due to the franchise
arrangements the whole train service in and out of London Bridge will change and this means
that more trains will be stopping in the high level rather than terminating, more passengers
will therefore be able to disembark at London Bridge. Figures for pedestrian flow modelling
show levels in the peak 3 hours as 185,000 in the future.
     • Are all platforms being expanded to their full capacity?
At present we are delivering 4 12 car 1 10 car and 1 8 car platform in the low level with 9 12
car platforms on the high level. This is the outcome required by the Thameslink Programme
and the DFT. Network Rail would ideally like to look at 6x 12 car platforms in the low level
(terminating platforms). The new rebuilt platforms will also be much wider than the current
platforms and, along with improved access arrangements including a new concourse between
Tooley Street and St Thomas's Street and lifts and escalators, will be able to cope with the
increased passenger numbers.

On Waterloo - you will recall we did write to Richard O'Brien recently. As far as I know we
haven't received a response yet. We were hoping to confirm a) the status of Platform 20 at
the station and b) when the four other international platforms would be brought into use. [A
reply has been sent. Let me know whether or not Valerie has received the letter]

     • What would the impact be of proposals to make the station a listed building?
Listing the rest of the station (the Victory Arch is already listed) could have a significant
negative impact on the affordability and deliverability of improvements for passengers. With
considerable passenger growth expected at Waterloo – which is already on of the busiest
stations on the network – Network Rail’s long term strategy is to consider how to upgrade the
station to accommodate 12-car rolling stock. This is likely to require significant alterations to
station. Such alterations could unlock the commercial potential of Waterloo, which in turn
could off-set the costs to tax and fare payers. Listing could make such changes more
expensive and difficult, jeopardising the potential regenerative benefits a redeveloped station
could bring to the area and the delivery of the improvements passengers need.
     • Are there plans to improve accessibility to the station and/or the pedestrian
         environment around the station?
Network Rail is working with South Bank Employers’ Group on their Waterloo City Square
scheme and liaising with the TfL interchange team regarding the potential medium and
longer-term improvements for Waterloo.
Kind regards,
Tijs

Tijs Broeke
Network Rail
London Assembly Transport Committee investigation into rail
overcrowding (16 October 2008) - written submission from Passenger
Focus

1. Introduction
The High Level Output Specification (HLOS) for England and Wales predicts 25%
growth in passenger kilometres by 2014. This comes on top of considerable growth
over the past decade.

While such growth is welcome and reflects the strength of rail as a transport mode it
is not without consequences for passengers - chief amongst these being the impact
on present and future levels of overcrowding, both on trains and at stations.

2. Measuring overcrowding
There is no simple definition of overcrowding. Unlike buses there is no maximum
number of passengers that can be carried on a train - the upper limit being defined by
passengers’ willingness (and ability) to physically squeeze into a carriage.

This is to a large extent a consequence of a flexible, ‘turn-up-and-go’ ticketing
system. Moreover, as not all stations are staffed and many trains are driver-only
operated, there is no practicable means of preventing people from boarding a
crowded train if they choose, or of compelling them to leave. Unless there is a move
to compulsory reservations - something that is likely to prove unpopular with
passengers – it is extremely difficult to prevent overcrowding. Hence tot becomes
even more important to monitor crowding levels.

There are specific crowding targets for peak commuter services in the London and
South East area. The target – known as Passengers in Excess of Capacity (PIXC) –
is administered by the Department for Transport (DfT) and only applies to weekday
commuter trains arriving in London between 07.00 and 09.59 and those departing
between 16.00 and 18.59.

Capacity is deemed to be the number of standard class seats on the train for
journeys of more than 20 minutes; for journeys of 20 minutes or less, an allowance
for standing room is also made. The allowance for standing varies with the type of
rolling stock but, for modern sliding door stock, is typically approximately 35% of the
number of seats.

The PIXC measure for a Train Operating Company (TOC) as a whole is derived from
the number of passengers travelling in excess of capacity on all services divided by
the total number of people travelling, expressed as a percentage. PIXC counts are
carried out once a year, on a typical weekday during the autumn.

                                           1
Passenger Focus has a number of concerns at the adequacy and accuracy of this
measure. For instance, it is only conducted once a year, it is based on manual
counts, and it is reported on a company wide basis and therefore does not show the
most crowded routes.

The DfT has set limits on the level of acceptable PIXC at 4.5% on one peak (morning
or afternoon) and 3% across both peaks. The most recent set of publicly available
figures is for the period 2005-2006 (NB these reflect TOC names as of that period)


       Table 1. Passengers in excess of capacity. 2005-2006
         TOC                      Peak (AM)       Peak (PM)   Overall
                                  2006 PiXC       2006 PiXC   2006 PiXC
                                  %               %           %
         c2c                          0.8             0.2         0.5
         Chiltern                     2.5             0.0         1.3
         First Capital Connect        4.6             3.0         4.0
         First Great Western         10.9             4.5         8.2
         One                          4.8             2.9         3.9
         Silverlink                   5.0             1.2         3.8
         Southeastern                 3.4             0.7         2.2
         Southern                     4.2             1.0         2.8
         South West Trains            8.0             2.5         5.8

         Total                        4.8            1.9         3.5
       Source: Office of Rail Regulation. National Rail Trends Yearbook 2006-2007


This clearly shows that crowding is more of a problem in the morning rush-hour than
the evening. Closer analysis of the morning peak in London reveals an even starker
picture. Network Rail’s Strategic Business Plan 2007 shows that approximately
70,000 passengers have to stand on services arriving in London between 08:00 and
09:00. However, even in the shoulder peak hours of 07:00 to 08:00 and 09:00 to
10:00, approximately 30,000 people have to stand. Over the entire three hour peak
around 23,000 people are carried beyond the capacity of the trains on which they
travel.

The HLOS for England and Wales reflects this situation. It defines capacity
requirements in terms of a load factor for trains arriving at terminal stations for the
morning peak period and in respect of the high-peak hour (08.00-09.00).

In order to monitor crowding levels more accurately we believe there is a need for the
industry to install automatic counting technology. This will provide real-time
information on train loadings so that problem areas and trends can be identified and
acted upon in a far more timely fashion.




                                              2
3. Passenger perceptions of and attitudes to overcrowding
(a) Passenger Satisfaction
   Passenger Focus produces the National Passenger Survey (NPS). This measures
   passenger satisfaction against a range of train and station based criteria, one of
   which is ‘sufficient space for all passengers to sit/stand’.

  Results from the Spring 2008 survey show that, nationally, 62% rated the space to
  sit/stand as satisfactory or good compared to 80% satisfaction with their journey
  overall. For the London and South East sector (i.e. London commuter TOCs) the
  scores were 60% and 79% respectively.

  However, satisfaction scores within the London and South East area differ quite
  considerably from TOC to TOC.

  Table 2: satisfaction with space to sit/stand. NPS Spring 2008
      TOC                              % ranking
                                       satisfactory/good
       c2c                                      61
       Chiltern                                 75
       First Capital Connect                    55
       First Great Western                      63
       Heathrow Express                         87
       London Overground                        46
       National Express East Anglia             58
       South West Trains                        66
       Southern                                 63
       Southeastern                             52
       London Midland                           63



  These are ‘all day’ scores. When looked at in terms of peak and off-peak periods
  we see a considerable difference in satisfaction. It comes as no surprise that
  satisfaction is lower during peak periods – especially given the PIXC and load
  figures above - but what is noticeable is the sheer scale of the difference.

  Table 3: Satisfaction with room to sit/stand. NPS Spring 2008
                   TOC                       Peak            Off-peak
                                          % ranking         % ranking
                                      satisfactory/good satisfactory/good
       c2c                                      44              72
       Chiltern                                 60              78
       First Capital Connect                    25              65
       First Great Western                      40              67
       London Overground                        38              47
       National Express East Anglia             27              68
       South West Trains                        40              73
       Southern                                 35              70
       Southeastern                             29              62
       London Midland                           22              70

       London and South East Average            33              68



                                            3
(b) Passenger priorities
   In 2007 Passenger Focus commissioned research looking at passengers priorities
   for improvement. This involved asking passengers to rank the relative importance
   of some 30 different train and station attributes. The top 10 scores for the London
   area were as follows:

  Table 4: Passenger Priorities for Improvement. Passenger Focus. 2007
        London    Attribute                       GB rank
         Rank
            1        Price of train tickets offer excellent   1
                     value for money
            2        Sufficient train services at times I     2
                     use the train
            3        At least 19 out of 20 trains arrive on   3
                     time
            4        Passengers are always able to get        4
                     a seat on the train
            5        Passengers kept informed of delays       5
            6        Maximum queue time no more than          6
                     two mins to purchase tickets
            7        Information on train times/platforms     7
                     accurate and available
            8        Trains are consistently well             8
                     maintained/in excellent condition
            9        Passengers experience a high level       10
                     of security on the train
            10       Seating area on the train is very        9
                     comfortable


  London and South East passengers ranked ‘getting a seat’ as the fourth most
  important aspect of their journey.

  The combination of low satisfaction and a high priority ranking make crowding a
  key area for the industry to tackle.

4. Impact of overcrowding
Overcrowding is not just an abstract concept – it can have a real impact on the
quality of service experienced by passengers as well as consequences for business.
For example:

(a) Performance
    Passengers taking longer to board and alight from crowded trains can actually
    cause delays to services. Equally trains having to wait longer at stations may
    result in scheduled journey times having to be lengthened.

(b) Accessibility
    Overcrowding also has specific implications for people with reduced mobility. In
    a rush for seats, for example, passengers with reduced mobility are least likely to
    get to the seats first. There are also associated issues such as ease of access to
    toilets on trains.

                                                   4
(c) Employment.
    In September 2003 the House of Commons Transport Committee published a
    report on overcrowding on public transport. It concluded:
        “Failure to provide an efficient public transport system means that employers
        are faced with staff who are tired, stressed and uncomfortable on arrival at
        the workplace. Lateness at work, loss of productivity, sickness absence, and
        rescheduled meetings and lost business due to public transport
        overcrowding and delays all impose real and significant costs.”

(d) Health and safety
    In 1999 the Health and Safety Executive commissioned research looking into the
    implications of overcrowding on railways. It concluded that
           - injuries can be sustained at any speed of impact whether standing or
               sitting or facing either direction
           - For collisions occurring at higher speeds, serious injuries can be
               sustained by both seated and standing passengers. There is no
               evidence to suggest a difference in severity.
           - At lower speeds seated passengers would be at less risk of serious
               injury if they had sufficient warning.

    In its evidence to the House of Commons Transport Committee Inquiry into
    overcrowding, Passenger Focus’s predecessor body, the Rail Passengers
    Council, questioned whether too little weight had been given to the health and
    safety issues arising from overcrowded trains other than injury in the event of a
    crash – e.g. the stress of travelling in very crowded carriages. This in turn led to
    the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) – with support from the Rail
    Passengers Council and the Corporation of London - to commission research in
    this area. The final report [Health and safety effects of crowding - 2004]
    concluded that “little conclusive evidence was found of an increasing health and
    safety problem as a result of crowding. However, this does not preclude things
    changing in the future. Therefore, regular analysis of accident, incident and
    complaints data should be carried out to examine trends with rail usage”.



5. Options to address overcrowding
There are a number of options but, in economic terms, most boil down to either
increasing supply or reducing demand.

Traditional short-term supply measures involve running more services and/or longer
trains over the existing infrastructure. Another option includes re-configuring rolling
stock to provide more seats or more standing capacity – the latter often being at the
expense of seats. Research published by Passenger Focus in August 2008 (in
association with London TravelWatch and DfT) on the design of the new ‘Thameslink’
rolling stock showed the importance of planning trains with the reality of crowding in



                                           5
mind. Passengers felt that it was important that the new trains should be designed to
meet the needs of those who have to stand as well as those who get a seat.

However, the nature of the railway means that there is a finite limit to the number of
trains (and hence, passengers) that can run at any one time so at some point
additional capacity can only be provided by upgrading the infrastructure (e.g. new
signal technology, track work or longer station platforms) in order to allow more, or
longer trains, to run. As growth continues there will be a need for new lines.

Passenger Focus is pleased that the issue of crowding in London has been
acknowledged and acted upon. Transport for London’s Rail 2025 document sets out
a number of interventions/ schemes required to meet projected demand for rail
services. The Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) programme managed by Network Rail
also takes a very close look at the gap between current capacity and future demand.

DfT’s HLOS announcement paved the way for new carriages. Some 1300 new
carriages will be provided across England – the majority of which will be on London
services. It also outlines a general programme of platform lengthening on several
routes from ’8-car’ operation to ‘10-car’ – something that creates capacity to
accommodate growth of 25 per cent. In addition the Thameslink scheme has been
given the go-ahead.

Such investment and commitment is very welcome and should not be
underestimated. However, there remain questions about whether enough is being
done now for the longer-term beyond 2014. Network Rail itself talks of building in
“passive provision” when delivering platform extensions (i.e. to make it much easier
to subsequently lengthen services to 12-car length) but the House of Commons
Transport Committee in its inquiry [Delivering a sustainable railway: a 30-year
strategy for the railways - July 2008 ] felt that there was a need for a bolder vision
addressing long-term strategy.

‘Demand side’ economic theories can also be used to reduce overcrowding through
the use of price. The current ticketing structure is partly designed to encourage
people to travel outside the busy periods but there is also the option, as used by
British Rail, to decrease overall demand by increasing peak fares – so called ‘pricing-
off’ demand.

Passenger Focus remains firmly opposed to the principle of pricing-off demand. NPS
results for Spring 2008 show that passengers already have a poor opinion of value
for money: only 36% of passengers in the London and South East sector being
satisfied and 43% being dissatisfied. When looking purely at commuters satisfaction
levels are even lower. Simply putting up fares will exacerbate these feelings.

Passenger Focus does not, however, oppose using incentives to help spread
demand outside peak hours – the key point being to offer discounts to passengers
who travel outside peak hours rather than penalise those who travel in the peak.

                                           6
Passenger Focus research [Encouraging Edge of Morning Peak Travel – 2006]
indicates that passengers might be willing to travel outside the high-peak hour (i.e.
08.00-09.00) through the use of so called ‘early-bird/late-bird’ schemes that offer a
discount/saving (in the region of 25%) on the cost of peak fares.

Passenger Focus believes that addressing overcrowding is one of the key challenges
facing the rail industry in the coming years. Ultimately, crowding pressures will only
be addressed through sustained, long-term investment in the railways. Unless there
is a concerted effort to address this it is clear that crowding will increasingly constrain
the ability of the network to deliver a service that meets the needs of passengers.




Passenger Focus
Whittles House
14 Pentonville Road
London N1 9HF

October 2008




                                            7
      BRIEF FOR MEMBERS OF THE LONDON ASSEMBLY INQUIRY INTO
             OVERCROWDING ON OVERGROUND RAIL ROUTES

    RESEARCH INTO CROWD MANAGEMENT UNDERTAKEN BY RAIL SAFETY
                      AND STANDARDS BOARD

Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB’s) role is to facilitate the resolution of
difficult cross-industry issues and build consensus, continuously improving safety,
driving out unnecessary cost and improving business performance. RSSB is
owned and funded by industry stakeholders; is a not for profit company;
independent of any single organisation. The research and development
programme is funded by Department for Transport and addresses problems that
individual companies cannot address on their own, in the areas of health, safety,
reliability, punctuality, capacity, availability and cost. It supports the development
and implementation of a vision for the future of the rail industry.

As part of the research and development programme, RSSB has been managing
a number of crowd-related research projects over several years. These have
included work on defining and understanding crowding and crowd managing in the
railway context; examining management arrangements at stations; looking at
accidents worldwide; understanding passenger flow modelling systems; and a
variety of other themes. The original workstreams were sponsored by RIAC (the
Railway Industry Advisory Committee) which is now part of the Office of Rail
Regulation. RSSB has reported progress to RIAC on a number of occasions and
following the conclusion of the early stages of the work was given a remit to
examine crowd management on trains. This is a very large project which is
coming to a conclusion under the sponsorship of the industry’s Operations Focus
Group which includes members drawn from Network Rail, Train Operators,
London Underground, Trade Unions etc. The main output will be a good practice
guide: Crowd Management on Trains, which is designed to help operators use a
variety of control and information processes to help mitigate the impacts of high
volume use of train services at busy periods.

The very success of the railway industry and its growing reputation for producing
sustainable transport solutions has to be set against the lengthy lead time to
provide additional capacity, especially in major urban areas. The research is not
covering how to get more trains on the network - that is for the industry, its funders
and regulators to manage, although research can be deployed to answer particular
questions.

The main conclusions of the work to date are:

-    It is very difficult to provide a useful strict definition of crowding and
     overcrowding in terms of health and safety

-    The objective elements include density and the available space, whereas the
     subjective elements include a perception of both the available space and the
     number of people present
-   One very good way of assessing the build-up of a developing crowd is to
    observe how closely people are packed together as illustrated in this diagram:




-   In context with the risk from other non-crowding related hazards on the railway,
    the risk associated with crowding was found to be small

-   However, the perception of risk from crowding appears higher, among the
    public and rail users

-   Other than some cases of fainting, very little direct evidence of any health
    effects from crowding was found

The projects undertaken are:

T307 Health and safety effects of crowding (published)
T161 Managing large events and perturbations at stations (published)
T605 Management of on-train crowding (in progress)

Details of these can be found on the research pages of our website:
www.rssb.co.uk

Further information can be obtained from:

Michael Woods
Head of Operations Research
020 7554 4604
michael.woods@rssb.co.uk

								
To top