How can capacity be increased on London's suburban rail lines?
A Connex service at East Croydon, Summer 2000. Picture: Chris Wood.
Much has been made in recent years about the consensus that is emerging regarding transport issues in London. There is now general agreement that traffic growth in the capital must be constrained and that public transport must be made more attractive to encourage a meaningful modal shift from the private car. The Government White Paper of 1998 does much to promote the bus as a currently greatly underused resource, which can provide an interim, short term solution to ever increasing threat of gridlock occurring in London's streets.
Whilst it is sensible to encourage greater usage of the bus in London, it must be borne in mind by all interested parties that many Londoners and those accessing London on a daily or regular basis are not regular bus users and feel more comfortable using rail services - both London Underground and National Railway services. Passenger volumes on Train Operating Companies (T.O.C.s) serving Central London have risen sharply in recent years. The 1998-99 OPRAF Annual Report defines those T.O.C.s, which are predominantly focused on the London commuter market and these companies saw passenger numbers increase between 1996-97 and 1997-98 by 6.7% and from 1997-98 to 1998-99 by a further 5.9%. There is nothing in the Government's economic forecasts to suggest that this trend will be reversed in the immediate future.
Whilst such strong growth in the rail market should be a cause for celebration, in London it is something of a mixed blessing. The passenger rail network serving the London termini is near or at capacity at peak times. Little scope exists to increase the number of rail services into Central London during rush hours, due to constraints such as terminal capacity and capacity of the network, particularly at locations on approaches to terminus stations. Innovative signal technology, such as Moving Block Signalling, which would increase capacity, is not an immediate prospect.
Longer trains are possible on certain routes where adequate platform lengths exist to accommodate them, though the long lead times necessary for the acquisition of additional rolling stock, which many T.O.C.s would need to operate such services, tend to militate against early implementation.
Double-decker trains again might be feasible on certain routes, but would need major civil engineering works to be undertaken to bridges and tunnels to allow their operation on a wide scale. Initiatives to spread the peak, such as L.T.S. Rail's Early Bird ticket, which reduces the price of a ticket for passengers arriving in London before 7.00 a.m., have been welcome, but cannot alone solve the overwhelming problem of peak hour congestion that is facing the rail network in London.
|
How can capacity be increased on London's suburban rail lines? A Connex service at East Croydon, Summer 2000. Picture: Chris Wood. |
Self evidently what London's rail network needs is a step change in capacity. Additional capacity needs to be created as a matter of urgency, but as everyone involved in the public transport scene in London knows, major rail infrastructure projects, which would provide that desperately needed step change in capacity, are neither quick nor cheap pieces to slot into the transport jigsaw. Until major congestion relieving schemes such as CrossRail and Chelsea - Hackney are constructed, continued growth of passengers on London's rail network is likely to result in ever increasing overcrowding and the public's experience and perception of its standard of service is likely to continue to deteriorate.
As London's radial rail network currently does not have adequate capacity to meet the demands placed upon it, the big question that needs to be asked in the short-medium term is how should the scarce resource of rail capacity in London be apportioned, and particularly, what the balance should be between longer distance commuter services, which are geared towards the shire counties, and inner suburban services, which generally link stations in Inner and Outer London with Central London terminus stations.
At first glance moral right appears to be on the side of capacity being weighted towards shorter, more London orientated services. They appear to be consistent with the Government's transport policies, which are aimed at decreasing the need to travel and encouraging people to reduce the distance of the home-to-work journey. In addition many Inner London stations are sited in the most economically deprived parts of the country (e.g. Brixton, Southall, Cambridge Heath), where car ownership rates are low and local people are particularly reliant on public transport. However experience tends to show that robust social policy and transport policy arguments have been overridden by the commercial interests of T.O.C.s, who have appeared to structure their timetables towards longer distance services where a choice between the type of service has to be made.
A prime example is the debate that raged for some years about West Ham Station. Newham Council initiated dialogue with Network South East in 1990 regarding the provision of a London, Tilbury & Southend stopping service at West Ham. The first reaction of the rail industry was a recognition of the strategic benefits that passengers would gain from such a service, particularly once the Jubilee Line Extension was operational, obviating the need for many passengers originating in the Southend area, bound for Docklands and the South Bank to change at Limehouse or Fenchurch Street. The rail industry view was that these passenger benefits, however, had to be set against the loss of revenue that the train operator would suffer, as a result of passengers not buying a season ticket that took them all the way to Fenchurch Street. Revenue would be diluted between the then L.T.S. division of Network South East and London Underground rather than going solely to N.S.E., which was not considered commercially acceptable. The bottom line reigned supreme and the station only really became reality once it was included in the franchise conditions for the then L.T.S. Rail some years later.
How can the needs of Inner London services and longer-distance trains be balanced? Two scenes at Herne Hill, Summer 2000. Top: A southbound 'Networker' approaches. Bottom: A Eurostar train runs through en route to Waterloo. Pictures: Chris Wood. |
 |
 |
The notion of primacy of longer distance services with few, if any, Inner London stops over shorter distance services is prevalent throughout the rail network in the London area. Stopping trains at stations such as Northumberland Park and Angel Road on the Lea Valley Line (Liverpool Street - Stansted Airport/Cambridge/Hertford East) have only recently been increased to hourly with no services on Sundays. The potential for more trains to call at these stations is compromised by limited capacity, which is prioritised for the longer distance, more lucrative services. There are no services at all at London Fields and Cambridge Heath stations after 7.30 p.m.!
Great Eastern Railway services were last year cut at Forest Gate and Manor Park stations from 7 to 4 inbound to Liverpool Street in the morning peak hour, primarily it seems to ensure that overcrowding levels on longer distance services would not be infringed as a result of people boarding already crowded services at these stations.
Orbital rail routes in London such as the North London Line (Richmond-North Woolwich) and West London Line (Clapham Junction - Willesden Junction) lie exclusively within London, though, of course, they do link to the wider rail network, providing regional and national rail connections. They appear to offer good potential to increase the density of rail services to the advantage of the London passenger and indeed service levels on the North London Line have recently increased from 3 to 4 trains per hour at peak times on the section between Stratford and Richmond. Many London borough councils served by the North London Line have aspirations for the service level to reach 6 trains per hour.
Anglia Railways has gained authorisation for a Chelmsford - Basingstoke service, which is listed in the most recent National Rail Timetable, even though the service has [at the time of writing] yet to commence. This service would run over the North London Line, calling only at Stratford, Highbury & Islington and West Hampstead on this section of its routing. Such an interworking of a semi-fast service with the existing 'all stations' service on the North London Line will inevitably compromise capacity, possibly eliminating the possibility of a 6 trains per hour service on the line.
The Willesden - Clapham service, introduced some five years ago has proved extremely popular. A new station opened at West Brompton last year, which has helped to boost ridership figures further. Services currently have to interwork with Connex (Rugby - Gatwick Airport) services and Virgin Cross Country services linking Brighton and Wales/Scotland. The need to interwork local with longer distance services could well limit the potential to increase local services on this line.
The Transport & Works Variation Order for Thameslink 2000 was issued last September this year. The scheme is intended to divert services, which currently terminate at London Bridge (from the South) and Kings Cross (from the North), through the central section of the Thameslink network to serve Blackfriars, City Thameslink, Farringdon and a new station at St. Pancras Midland Road. It is also intended to increase the length of a number of trains from the present 8 cars to 12 cars. Should the intended frequency through the central section be achieved - 24 trains per hour - the scheme will offer new journey opportunities, e.g. direct services from King's Lynn to Littlehampton. However the putative service pattern that is being advocated once again appears to be slanted away from local services towards longer distance services. On the W.A.G.N. branch there is no guarantee that any of the Thameslink services will call at Alexandra Palace, New Southgate, Oakleigh Park or New Barnet. On the Midland Mainline branch, there is doubt about the service level to stations such as Mill Hill Broadway, Hendon and Cricklewood. The projected 24 trains per hour originating south of the River Thames converge at Blackfriars - 18 having served London Bridge and only 6 having called at Elephant & Castle. This ratio clearly gives the impression that the project will prioritise the longer distance service pattern with little impetus being given to the desires of Southwark Council to regenerate Elephant & Castle and create a new Inner London station at Camberwell.
There is considerable support among local authorities in Inner East and South London to encourage early construction of the East London Line Extension to Highbury & Islington/Finsbury Park in the north and Croydon/Wimbledon in the south. It is envisaged that a core service standard of 18 trains per hour would operate on the main section of the network (between Dalston and Surrey Quays). It is gratifying that T.O.C.s are already expressing an interest in the line and wish to examine the possibilities of operating services on the line, which would integrate into the wider rail network. This interest must be tempered by a realisation that future service must always recognise the core standard of 18 trains per hour serving Inner London stations.
How can this conundrum be resolved? Obviously the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority (G.L.A.) will have a key rôle in promoting public transport for and by Londoners. Their position though may have been put into perspective by Sir Alistair Morton, Chairman of the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority at the recent London Transport Lecture, who when asked about the role of the Mayor and the G.L.A. in relation to rail services in London, answered to the effect that the Mayor would not have a say in rail services from Northampton or Southampton into London, but would do for rail services from Edgware or Dulwich into London. Can these two types of services be viewed in isolation from one another? What will happen, say, if a train operator wants to run more Northampton - Euston services, which cannot be achieved without reducing the number of Watford - Euston services? Will extra Southampton - Waterloo services lead to less Hampton Court - Waterloo services?
The Government has made it clear that the Mayor's powers will be advisory rather than mandatory in relation to any possible conflict between longer distance and London orientated services. The London Regional Passengers' Committee has drawn attention to the timescale of T.O.C. franchise renewals preceding the appointment of the Mayor for London and therefore creating a scenario where the Mayor is presented with a fait accompli over which he/she will have little or no influence and consequently no voice for London in this vital debate. A mechanism must be found to ensure that the Mayor does have an effective input into the process of T.O.C. franchise renewal to optimise the journey opportunities in London.
Revenue apportionment from Travelcard is an exercise which seems shrouded in secrecy. One consequence that is crystal clear, however, is that T.O.C.s are not incentivised to promote journeys which involve passengers purchasing Travelcards rather than point to point tickets, due to the dilution of accrued revenue to all operators participating in the Travelcard scheme. The Travelcard is a vital tool in promoting public transport usage in London; its well recorded passenger benefits must be extended to the T.O.C.s, if it is to play its full rôle in promoting public transport usage in London. This may entail a radical restructuring of revenue apportionment from Travelcard.
Longer distance rail services, particularly those which create new journey opportunities, are welcome, but any such euphoria surrounding their introduction, should not be allowed to blind T.O.C.s to very necessary service enhancements that are needed within the London area, or even worse, lead to a situation where longer distance services gain a status where they are seen as inherently superior to more localised services. Ultimately the allocation of rail space in the London area may become as politically an important question as allocation of road space. It is vital that everyone has an opportunity to play a part in this debate surrounding this issue and that the decision making process is an inclusive rather than exclusive exercise.
If the Government is to succeed in promoting significant modal shift in Inner and Outer London, the train, as well as the bus, has a key rôle to play. Diminution of rail services to Inner London stations; reluctance to create strategic rail interchanges because they will reduce a T.O.C.'s revenue; longer distance services taking precedence over London orientated services, are all symptomatic of a worrying trend which must be overcome if a truly balanced rail network in London is to be achieved.
Steve Kearns is Public Transport Officer with the Corporation of London, and is a member of CILT's Management Committee. The views expressed are personal ones and not necessarily those of CILT or the Corporation.