Interview with Ian Paterson, Community Rail Partnership Project Officer, Medway Valley Community Rail Partnership.

The Chairman introduced the Committee’s review of rail services in the Borough to the witnesses and members of the public, highlighting that it was led by a concern over future services.  The aim of the review was to identify whether existing services were sufficient, what improvements were already underway and what improvements were needed for the future.

Ian Paterson, Community Rail Partnership Project Officer, informed Members that he was a part-time project officer for the Medway Valley Line (MVL).  The Medway Valley Community Rail Partnership had been set up in 2005 and there were over 50 similar partnerships in the country.  Partners included local authorities, rail companies and the communities along the MVL, and the partnership met approximately 5 times per year.  Funding came from Kent County Council, Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, rail service providers and some parish councils.  The partnership was hosted by Action with Communities in Rural Kent which was a registered charity.

Mr Paterson highlighted that the partnership was not a lobbying or commuter group; rather it existed to promote awareness and usage of the line and improve facilities.  It also responded to consultations where appropriate.  The partnership looked to engage the community, bring them back to the railway and reduce traffic congestion.  The partnership distributed newsletters and timetables to over 40 outlets along the MVL and had installed notice boards at each station.  Bespoke station guides were produced for some stations highlighting information on station facilities and onward travel arrangements.  The partnership also worked with Network Rail and Southeastern who had repainted and refurbished stations along the entire line in 2009, including installation of new seats, customer information screens, CCTV and shelters.  The canopy at Maidstone West had also been replaced.

Passenger figures had increased by 5-6% over the last year, which was better than comparable lines without a community rail partnership.  A survey carried out in 2008 had highlighted concerns over the quality of the rolling stock, a lack of communication with passengers, vandalism and people not paying fares; these issues had now been addressed, which may have contributed to the rise in passenger numbers.

The partnership had campaigned for a larger car park at East Farleigh station, resulting in an expansion from 6 spaces to 40.  A campaign to have rail replacement buses call at East Farleigh, rather than stopping almost a mile away, had also been successful.  The MVL had joined the Kent-wide penalty fare scheme in October 2009 to reduce incidences of people using the line without paying.  Rolling stock on the line had been improved; previously there had been 3-car trains without toilets but these had been replaced by 2-coach trains with toilets. Work had been undertaken with the University College for the Creative Arts to produce murals for display in the ticket hall and platform at Maidstone West station.  Special events on the line, for example “music trains” and commentated journeys, were arranged to increase the profile of the service.  Improvements had also been made to connections and service times, for example extending some journeys to Tonbridge rather than finishing in Paddock Wood.

The Chairman asked what problems Mr Paterson anticipated in the medium term, and what the bigger picture was for the MVL.  Mr Paterson stated that the biggest problem medium term was that funding for the partnership was on a year-on-year basis so medium to long-term planning could not take place.  With regard to the bigger picture, Mr Paterson hoped that the high speed trains to London would go from Maidstone West station, which would involve using the MVL, and he looked for support from the Committee for this.  Mr Paterson also hoped that peak, as well as off-peak, services could be extended to Tonbridge, though there were issues with capacity at Tonbridge Station.  There had been support for extending some services to Redhill or Gatwick, however the Department for Transport (DfT) had felt that there was not enough of a cost benefit to this.  Southeastern saw the most potential on the northern side of the line in view of its potential link with high speed services.  There was some capacity on services, particularly off-peak, therefore work was being carried out to increase off-peak usage.

In response to a question, Mr Paterson confirmed that the 74 car parking spaces currently available at Maidstone West station were sufficient; however there was no potential for future additional spaces.

With regard to passenger figures, Mr Paterson explained that Southeastern monitored passenger figures and as this information was commercially sensitive, it could not be made publicly available.  There was a mix of passengers on the MVL, including shoppers, school pupils and commuters, so the line did not rely on any one passenger group.

A Councillor asked whether unmanned level crossings were monitored by CCTV.  Mr Paterson stated that CCTV had been installed at the Wateringbury level crossing as part of a Network Rail awareness event, but this was the only crossing with CCTV.

A Member asked about support for projects.  Mr Paterson stated that funding could be obtained from a variety of small project funds, for example at Medway Council, the DfT and the Association of Community Rail Partnerships.  Southeastern contributed £10,000 per year for small projects, and the partnership’s link to Action with Communities in Rural Kent allowed it access to some charity funding.  The main problem was in terms of officer time, rather than funding.

Councillor FitzGerald addressed the Committee in his capacity as Chairman of the Kent Community Rail Partnership and stated that the aim for the MVL was to increase usage and have more trains per hour.  It would also be beneficial to be able to plan three years ahead, rather than one.  Councillor FitzGerald argued that community rail lines like the MVL only survived with the support of a vibrant group so DfT funding for the Medway Valley Community Rail Partnership was vital.  Councillor FitzGerald reiterated Mr Paterson’s request for the Committee’s support for high speed services coming to Maidstone rather than Ashford.

The Chairman thanked Mr Paterson for an informative presentation.

Resolved:  That the information provided be noted as part of the ongoing review of rail services in the Borough.