Interview with Richard Howkins, South East Route Planner, and Murray Motley, Senior Commercial Schemes Sponsor – Kent, Network Rail.

The Chairman welcomed Richard Howkins, South East Route Planner, and Murray Motley, Senior Commercial Schemes Sponsor – Kent, from Network Rail and invited them to outline Network Rail’s work in Maidstone.

Mr Howkins informed Members that he dealt with strategic planning issues and worked with the Department for Transport (DfT) and rail service providers.  Mr Motley explained that his role was to write plans and business cases for projects and take them to the Network Rail investment panel.  He guided projects through Network Rail’s Guide to Railway Investment Projects (GRIP) process, from planning and designing through to funding and construction.

Mr Howkins stated that the Kent Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) had been published in April and all Local Authorities in Kent had been consulted on this.  The RUS had identified all options that could be delivered within 30 years and had made recommendations on these.  Consultation responses were currently being analysed and a strategy would be developed in light of these; it was expected that the strategy would be published early in 2010, and this would identify the medium-term plan for the Kent rail network. 

Mr Howkins and Mr Motley outlined several issues of particular significance to Maidstone:

·  Thameslink: Mr Howkins stated that Thameslink was a major investment programme for rolling stock and improvements to Blackfriars and London Bridge stations.  Construction would begin after the London 2012 Olympics and be completed in 2015/16.  The Kent RUS proposed Maidstone East being on the Thameslink Network, which would connect Maidstone East to the City of London from 2015/16.

·  High speed services: Mr Howkins explained that from December 2009, there was scope to lengthen the high speed trains to 12 cars and run those services currently beginning or ending in Ebbsfleet further into Kent to increase use.  One option was to route trains via Strood to Maidstone West on the Medway Valley Line, whilst the other was to use the existing high speed line to Ashford.  Ashford offered significant benefits, including reducing overcrowding on services from Ashford currently running through Headcorn and Staplehurst, however the services would need to use the international platform and building work would need to be carried out, making it a very expensive option.  Running high speed services to Maidstone offered fewer overall benefits than Ashford, however it was a much cheaper option.  It was highlighted that because the Strood-Maidstone section of the journey would need to be at normal speed, the overall journey time to London on the high speed service was unlikely to be significantly faster than the Thameslink service, taking approximately one hour to reach London.  The DfT would make the final decision, and this was unlikely to be in time for the publication of the final Kent RUS. Mr Motley informed Members that the Maidstone West option would need to be investigated further to check, for example, the condition of signalling, the height and width of bridges and tunnels.  Careful consideration would need to be given to which stops the high speed service would make, as it could not stop many times in order to maintain journey times.  In response to a question, Mr Motley explained that from 14 December 2009, residents could catch a train from Maidstone East to Strood and catch the high speed train from there to London; if high speed trains were routed through Maidstone West in future, this transfer would not be necessary.

·  Network Rail was looking to improve journey times on the Maidstone East line by reconsidering line speeds and speed restrictions.  Mr Motley worked in the Kent Route Enhancement Team which was looking to improve the Maidstone East line; however it could cost millions of pounds to reduce a journey by one minute.  The Maidstone East line had been built cheaply in the 1860s and it was prohibitively expensive to remove all of the bends in the track, however speed limits were being reviewed as some were historical and may no longer be necessary.  A compromise had to be reached between offering faster journey times that were unreliable and frequently late, or slower journeys that arrived on time and were dependable.  Focus had been given nationally to improving reliability rather than speed so that an unprecedented 93% of trains now arrived on time. 

·  Some consideration was being given to lengthening trains on the Maidstone East line to improve capacity.  Trains were generally 6-cars, with some 8-car trains at peak times.  These were ‘Networker’ trains which did not have the Selective Door Opening (SDO) facility, therefore the trains could not be longer than the platforms.  Whilst it could be worth extending platforms at some busier stations, for others it was cheaper to use SDO to prevent train doors opening where there was no platform.  The high speed train service could free up some rolling stock with the SDO facility.

The Chairman stated that the six year gap between the cancellation of the Maidstone East to Cannon Street service and the introduction of the Thameslink service was too long to wait.  Mr Howkins informed Members that the DfT and Southeastern would be making a decision on this issue within the next few weeks.  Network Rail did not have any influence over services currently available, as the RUS would inform the next franchise specification rather than the current one.  A Councillor asked for further clarification regarding responsibility for rail services.  Mr Howkins explained that the specification for the December 2009 timetable had been agreed by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) which had now disbanded.  The franchising element of the SRA had been taken on by the DfT, which now specified minimum services.  Network Rail now had more input into services than when the SRA existed, however the current specification had been agreed prior to this.  Due to pressure from commuter groups and local politicians, Southeastern was revisiting the issue of the Cannon Street service; the service had been withdrawn as Southeastern did not consider it value for money, therefore Southeastern was requesting funds from the DfT to subsidise the service.  Network Rail’s key responsibility with regard to timetables was to say whether a service could have a pathway and run safely on the network.

Councillors queried the length of time required to introduce the Thameslink service.  Mr Motley explained that this service would be enabled by improving the track between London St Pancras and London Bridge.  Just beyond London Bridge, Borough Market Junction connected Kent and most of East Sussex to the rest of the country and was consequently exceptionally busy, slowing journey times.  The location of this junction also made it difficult to widen.  In order to improve journey times, significant work was required on Borough Market Junction.  Blackfriars station was currently undergoing major re-construction and was being moved onto the existing river bridge while London Bridge station needed to be remodelled, all whilst maintaining services.  Building at London Bridge would commence after the London 2012 Olympics and would take 2-3 years.  The project was costing £4-5 million.

With regard to concerns over Maidstone residents travelling to other stations such as Headcorn and Staplehurst to catch more efficient trains (‘railheading’), Mr Howkins explained that it was the rail industry’s obligation to persuade people to use the nearest station to their homes by making services more attractive.  This would not happen overnight, particularly as the high speed services, which served few stations, were proving so successful, however work was being carried out to improve journey times and services.

A Councillor asked whether Network Rail had been involved in Maidstone’s bid for Growth Point status.  Mr Howkins stated that it had not, however Growth Point status would be referred to in the final RUS.  Demand forecasts used the South East Plan as a data source, so population and housing growth information captured in that would be reflected in growth forecasts.  The RUS predicted passenger growth of 32% by 2022, mostly around the Thameslink and Ashford areas, and in the Growth Point areas of Maidstone and Dover.

With regard to passenger data, Mr Howkins explained that station-by-station data was not very specific and required interpretation to obtain meaningful information from it.  Smart ticketing, such as Oyster cards, would improve passenger data. Information on footfall at stations was published by Network Rail.  Mr Motley highlighted that ticketing was extremely complicated, with over 125 million possible fares in the UK. Calculating passenger numbers from ticket sales was difficult because a ticket to London could go to any station in the city, for example.  In order to establish the proportion of a ticket sale that went to each relevant operator, train companies relied on some passengers keeping travel diaries.  Southeastern had carried out a passenger survey approximately 4 years ago, however the information was commercially sensitive and not even shared with Network Rail.  When closures had been proposed on the Maidstone-Ashford route 3-4 years ago, Kent County Council had disputed the Southeastern figures and carried out its own survey, which produced different results to those obtained by Southeastern, indicating the difficulties with establishing accurate passenger figures.

A Councillor asked whether freight was considered when planning services.  Mr Howkins confirmed that this was the case.  The Maidstone East line was the main freight route for the Channel Tunnel, and there were opportunities for overnight freight on the high speed line.  Additional freight would not affect passenger trains as there was room to accommodate growth.

In response to a question regarding the best ways to campaign for improved services, Mr Motley emphasised the importance of developing a strong, robust business case that was clear and concise.  The arguments needed to be viable and realistic. 

A Councillor requested an update on the redevelopment of Maidstone East station.  Mr Motley explained that the problem was the funding for this.  It would cost a significant amount of money to extend the platform at Maidstone East to 12 cars as this would need to go over the river bridge, and consequently require a new bridge.  Network Rail had a statutory obligation to get a good return on its investment, so the best option was to redevelop the whole station area.  New proposals for the station redevelopment were due to be put on the market in December 2009, and it was expected that stakeholders would be contacted around the same time. 

The Chairman requested further information on the advantages and disadvantages of both Maidstone and Ashford for the high speed line, though noted the issue with regard to similar journey times on the high speed service and Thameslink services, and thanked the witnesses for their contribution.  Mr Motley emphasised that Network Rail was keen to continue working with the Council in the future.

Members then considered the desktop research that had been carried out by the Overview and Scrutiny Team and noted that the Kent County Council policy on free transport to school did not apply to grammar schools where a comprehensive school was closer to the pupil’s home.  Councillors requested that the KCC Cabinet Member be contacted to identify whether this policy was likely to be reviewed in the near future.

Resolved:  That

a)  A letter be sent to the Kent County Council Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Education asking whether the policy on free transport to school was likely to be reviewed in the near future;

b)  Further information be requested on the advantages and disadvantages of both Maidstone and Ashford in relation to high speed rail services; and

c)  The evidence gathered be noted as part of the ongoing review into rail services in the Borough.