South West Main Line Route Utilization Strategy

Written by Susan Kramer and published in Response to Network Rail on Tue 18th Apr 2006

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft Route Utilization Strategy (RUS) for the South West Main Line. This document will have a significant impact on the constituency of Richmond Park, which includes North Kingston as well as Richmond, and which is heavily dependent on rail transport.

My responses below address Gaps 1-5 identified in the draft RUS. I have then raised a number of issues which are not included in your draft of October, 2005 but which have importance for our community.

Gap 1:

Overcrowding on the network at peak remains a persistent experience for most commuters, helped but not eliminated by recent improvements in the timetable and rolling stock. I can support this opinion from numerous surveys of passengers and will be glad to provide you with the results from additional surveys which my team will carry out in the New Year.

I am convinced, furthermore, that the forecast growth of 19% between 2007 and 2017 in passenger kilometres travelled in the peak, which is the basis for Network Rail's planning, will prove to be an underestimate. The forecast reflects expected demographic change but not any significant diversion from the car to rail. This must be an error since TfL's transport plan anticipates such a shift and our local reality is that the road network is heavily congested and already approaching gridlock both in the morning and in the evening. Even without a national congestion charging scheme, the difficulties of driving will inevitably encourage a modal shift from car to train and Network Rail's forecasts should be adjusted accordingly.

Additional services; train and platform lengthening:

In these circumstances, I am convinced that Network Rail must look both at additional services and at train and platform lengthening to combat overcrowding and delays. Clearly this involves expense, but I note that the significant and growing off-peak demand from this area, a contrast to most of the network, will help to offset the cost of such investment. The economic benefits to London and the UK of getting our commuters to work efficiently is also self-evident.

In the process of lengthening trains and platforms there will be an inevitable period of mismatch between longer trains and some platforms. In some cases lengthening of the platform may not be feasible even in the long-term. While annoying, I do believe that passengers can find ways to cope with this and that such concerns should not halt a programme with benefits to most commuters.

Ultimately, a step change in capacity is needed and I will address some of those issues below in the discussion of Waterloo International and the opportunities the move by Eurostar will bring to enhance and expand local commuter services.

I note that one of the key factors identified as a problem in increasing services is the lack of capacity in the power supply. My contacts in the industry tell me that this claim is dubious given the investment made in the power supply for rail in recent years. I would ask Network Rail to look much more critically at this issue.

Peak management/Oyster card:

Discount fares to encourage greater use of the trains before the morning peak as well as after does seem to me a logical approach to reducing overcrowding. However, I am inclined to support such a programme only if it is based on reducing fares before 7am, rather than increasing fares in the peak. Passengers have been consistently hit hard with fare increases in this area and the last thing we need is to drive rail commuters back to the car. I also believe that passengers must see fares as good value not as a punishment tariff.

One of the greatest frustrations for rail commuters in this area, most of whom go on to use the Tube and buses in central London, is the inability to have rail included fully within the Oyster card ticketing scheme. I would urge that the extension of Oyster card to rail be made a top priority. The Oyster card, because of its "smart" characteristics and the flexibility that offers, would be key to effective and creative demand management and to better use of the shoulder periods around the peak. We have had plenty of talk of the advantages of integrated transport and ticketing but we have seen precious little action.

Gap 2:

Timetable:

On the whole recent changes in the timetable have met with approval from commuters in this area. Stations that have lost service are clearly not happy but most now have more or better spaced services than before. However, any improvements would always be welcome. We have noted anecdotally that since the autumn more commuters are complaining of delayed trains again and this does need to be tackled.

The rail network in this area serves as an equivalent of the Tube. Therefore, the goal for service frequency should be at minimum a train every 15 minutes, reducing where possible to every 10 minutes and effectively allowing people to throw away the timetable and think in terms of "turn up and go" services. Such a scheme would genuinely enable a shift from car to rail for many more commuters. This concept need to be built into the RUS.

Balance:

For many years rail services in this area have been designed with the balance weighted firmly in favour of "national" services and long-distance commuters. Only recently has there been any shift to greater recognition of the dependence of this community on the train. I still believe that more must be done to meet these local needs and that some fundamental analytical work should be commissioned to better understand the transport needs of the whole of SW London on an integrated basis. Meanwhile, I would be very opposed if any element in the RUS would favour abandoning the few, small moves that have enhanced service provision for Richmond and Kingston commuters, notably improvements in the timetable. I am, therefore, very concerned that the proposed review of train stopping patterns should not disadvantage people in this area.

Gap 3:

Car parking:

There are no simple answers to the car parking issue. I have no doubt that work is needed to re-examine in a creative way the car parking opportunities at most stations in our area. However, in some case historical car parking suggestions have been totally unacceptable in proposing taking green space, for example at Barnes station, or demolishing heritage buildings, for example in Richmond.

Much better bus access to rail stations would, I suggest, be a more fruitful approach. In particular at night, co-ordinating bus services with train arrivals would not only make use of rail easier but significantly safer, especially for vulnerable groups like women.

Gaps 4 and 5:

Waterloo International - short, medium and long-term:

As discussed above, I believe that Network Rail is underestimating demand for rail in this area. The move of Eurostar from Waterloo to St Pancras, while it will be much regretted as the loss of an important service, offers the compensation of freeing up platform space at Waterloo which could make possible improvements to current services and offer longer-term solutions to capacity problems. I have discussed this at length in a Parliamentary adjournment debate (see Hansard 21/10/05) and remain convinced that the benefits must go to SW commuters who have to date been the forgotten community in major transport infrastructure planning.

In the short-term, I can see no reason why Network Rail should not transfer the released International platforms at Waterloo to provide for the Windsor lines. That alone will relieve some of the current frustration and delays caused when trains wait outside Waterloo hoping for an empty platform. The costs of adaptation are reasonably minimal.

In the medium term, taking down the Nine Elms viaduct would effectively restore a track to SW trains - a line surrendered to enable Eurostar to use Waterloo. The costs of this are greater but only in the range of £30m-£80m.

In the long-term, I would like to see the major reconstruction of Clapham Junction include the capacity for trains using the north platforms to come into Waterloo, a far more expensive project at £300m but consistent with the demand for a much more imaginative rail routing and timetable scheme for the whole area. This could be part of creating a genuinely outer orbital rail ring for London, taking pressure off the inner terminals. It would be a significant benefit to our area to have a greater choice of departures from Clapham Junction to avoid the nonsense of going in and out of central London to get anywhere.

At present, there has been some discussion of using the vacated space at Waterloo to accommodate the construction of Thameslink or Crossrail by temporarily diverting trains from those lines into Waterloo. I am not closed minded to these ideas but point out that in both cases commuters would have a hideous journey effectively trying to retrace their steps on heavily congested services. In the case of diesel trains from Paddington, the proposal would require a major rebuild of Waterloo's train shed.

I am pleased, however, that the draft RUS seems to be giving priority to rail rather than shopping at Waterloo and continue to be totally opposed to any plans to turn the Waterloo International platforms into a new shopping opportunity.

Other critical issues:

A number of key issues have not been addressed in the draft RUS which I believe it is important to raise.

North Sheen station footbridge:

The rail level crossing at North Sheen station is an accident waiting to happen and our only hope of getting some action fast is to have a new footbridge included in the RUS.

My constituency has numerous rail level crossings, many of which people find frustrating, but North Sheen is an entirely more critical issue. In the days shortly after rail privatisation, the deteriorating old footbridge was only partly replaced by a new footbridge which gave access only from the north. To leave the train and walk south or to access the trains from the south, people must first cross the level crossing. Train frequency is high, and sometimes the crossing gates are down for 3 or 4 trains without raising. The result is that every day people run or vault the gates. This includes adults on their way to work and school children (a secondary school is nearby on the south side). How a death has been avoided so far is beyond me but any rail official I can get to visit the crossing with me at 8am just stands there in shock at what is happening. Part of the reason a proper footbridge has not been erected since the problem became apparent, is that some-one has placed a junction box in the way of the path that would serve a southside footbridge; it will likely need to be moved raising the cost of a complete bridge to about £2 million. May I suggest, it is a cheap price to avoid a death or serious injury. I will happily facilitate a meeting between decision makers on this issue.

Station improvements in general:

I understand from Network Rail staff that none of the rail stations in my constituency are in the portfolios likely to be bid out for rehabilitation and improvement. I urge that this be re-examined. Richmond and Kingston stations as well as many of the smaller ones are in serious need of improvement. Richmond and Kingston are, frankly, eyesores.

In the long-term, while the smaller stations need much better accessibility - few are usable by anyone with a wheelchair or a pram - better lighting, CCTV and toilets would be a great step forward.

Local rail links between Richmond and Kingston:

Services in this area are overwhelmingly aimed at taking commuters into central London. But increasingly, local people wish to travel within the area especially from Richmond and its surrounding communities to work or shop in Kingston, a major regional centre. Car and bus routes are severely congested, but a train runs between the two stations only twice an hour. I ask that Network Rail examine these kinds of linkages in its upcoming RUS. Much of the demand is off-peak and so offers excellent ways to maximise the use of spare capacity. As I have said earlier, we need a proper integrated transport plan for this area.

Airtrack:

Better access to Heathrow would be valued by many local people. However, the Airtrack scheme for linking Heathrow to Waterloo via Richmond remains just a idea on the drawing board. A platform for Airtrack can be set aside in plans for T5 if Network Rail acts quickly. Capacity for Airtrack at Waterloo station will become available when Eurostar moves. Given the problems of traffic congestion and air pollution around Heathrow, the RUS should be an opportunity to advance this plan.

Conclusion:

In contrast to most of London, which is looking forward to projects such as the East London line, DLR extensions, Thameslink , Crossrail, and tram schemes, we in South-West London have seen virtually no new transport infrastructure for decades and have little in the pipeline.

But our demographics show strong future travel growth and with a gridlocked road network and little Tube service, the demand must largely be met by rail. This RUS is an opportunity to take on that challenge. The move of Eurostar from Waterloo should be used to give us new capacity over the short, medium and long term. The vacated platforms need to go to SW trains and, over time, changes to track infrastructure should provide more track access as well as promoting a new orbital role for Clapham Junction. The strategy should also encompass Airtrack from Heathrow to Waterloo via Richmond.

Service improvements are much needed and will require longer trains and platforms. More creative pricing regimes, using the flexibility of the Oyster card, can however offer better demand management. And safety measures need to be given priority in critical situations like the missing footbridge at North Sheen station, but safety concerns also justify improving stations in general and arranging for far better co-ordination of evening trains with bus services.

Improvements cannot be an excuse to continuously drive up fares on what is in effect a monopoly service. Fares must be fair. Fairness also means that the balance of services needs to recognise the needs of an areas like Richmond and Kingston, which are just as important as any national or long-distance commuter community. The need to give weight to local requirements applies not just to radial services into central London but to links within our area notably between Richmond and Kingston stations.