Official Report 573KB pdf
I welcome Sarah Boyack MSP, who is joining us for item 4, which is for the committee to take evidence for its work on access to Scotland’s major urban railways. I welcome Phil Verster, managing director, and Susan Anderson, route commercial manager, of the Network Rail-ScotRail alliance. Aidan Grisewood is the director of rail at Transport Scotland.
I invite Mr Verster to make some opening comments on the nature of the alliance between ScotRail Abellio and Network Rail.
First, thank you for the opportunity to give evidence to the committee today.
We have formed an alliance between the Abellio ScotRail train-operating franchise and the Network Rail Scotland route that brings together two businesses under one senior management team and one managing director. The focus of the alliance is to make the railway better for Scotland—better for our communities, for our people and for our customers.
We have a very exciting programme over the next couple of years, including bringing in 234 new electric vehicles and significantly more services, such as 25 per cent more services to central belt destinations such as Stirling, Dunblane and Alloa. We have brought our customers intercity services and multiple offers that are cross-modal in nature. To be honest, the programme is really exciting for the customers in our communities. Some of the big areas for us are improving our focus with stakeholders and customers and improving our railway.
One of the principles that we have set for our business is putting the customers first. The focus on stakeholders—including every stakeholder throughout our communities, whether they be community rail partnerships, regional transport partnerships or local authorities—involves bold relationships that allow the stations on which the committee has been taking evidence to be managed in the best interests of the communities that we serve.
We are very excited about the programme. We would like to give you some examples of where we know that we can do things differently and where we have done things differently already.
Thank you. I am sure that we will come on to that.
There is a lot of interest in today’s evidence session, and a number of members of the public and stakeholder organisations will be watching. For clarification, are you able to speak on behalf of Network Rail about the committee’s work on access to Scotland’s urban railway stations?
Yes, I am.
That is fine. I just wanted to be clear about that, in case there is some confusion among those who are watching our proceedings today.
The first questions are from Adam Ingram.
During our inquiry, the committee heard that no single organisation is responsible for co-ordinating accessibility improvements to Scotland’s railway stations, even when they are undergoing major regeneration or improvement. Which organisation should be responsible for that work? Why is such co-ordination not currently happening?
Some of the evidence on the integration of transport options across stations included correspondence in which Network Rail indicated that it does not have a strategic transport integration focus, and that might not have been that helpful. It may also not have been helpful for people to think that a single organisation should have responsibility for transport integration.
It is essential to get this right—and Sustrans expressed its view well when it said that the passenger experience should be seamless. That is what we should aim for and we need a mechanism by which it can be made to work. We should not try to identify a single mechanism or organisation that is accountable. We should have a simple mechanism that says who is accountable for getting things started, and we have to identify that between us.
The keys to achieving integration and that seamless passenger experience right are intent, how a business is run, how we all work together and common sense.
One of the important things that we have been doing in the month since we formed the alliance is focusing all our business plans on putting the customer first. Large projects have a client or sponsor and that has been part of the role of the alliance for the past month. Now that we are putting the customer first, I expect us to play a very different role from the one that we played in the past so that we can facilitate the necessary discussions.
Some large projects sit outside the alliance’s remit because, although the alliance looks after the operation of the railway, Network Rail still has good teams carrying out the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme and the Queen Street work. Those teams take their guidance from the sponsors in the alliance.
The alliance has a key future role in looking after ScotRail and the Network Rail’s Scotland routes. That will allow it to achieve involvement and co-ordination differently in future.
What is important about schemes such as Waverley and Queen Street is that they are not just railway schemes. This is not just about the railway. It is about the community that the railway is in, the cities and towns that it affects, flows of traffic and people, business opportunities, and opportunities to leverage in more funds and integrate development plans.
We realise that that is so. As a result of the role that the alliance wants to and will play, we will pace things differently. Queen Street is a good example of where the teams are focusing on creating an integrated approach.
You will obviously have seen the evidence that the committee has heard. A particular issue has been the metaphorical red line around railway stations. Local authorities have been frustrated about not being able to influence or even have appropriate communications with the station developers about, for example, public transport outwith the grounds of the station. Will one of the tasks in your new co-ordinated approach be to address such issues as a priority?
That is a really good question. The convener summarised the approach as concerning the three Cs of collaboration, co-ordination and a third one—
Consultation.
Yes, consultation. Those three Cs are the essence of what we need to get right.
With regard to the red line in the case of Queen Street station, I should clarify that two consultation-type processes are going on. There is an order under the Transport and Works (Scotland) Act 2007, which involves clear consultation duties and requirements with regard to statutory consultees. That is relevant to the red line issue for particular reasons, because it is about ownership and compulsory ownership of a geographic area.
The other consultation process—if you can call it that; it is consultation with a small c, but it is still important—is not about the statutory process to secure ownership of a piece of property; it is about the creation of the seamless interface.
The answer to your question is yes, we have a critical role to play. However, I want to make it clear that no organisation—not the alliance, not Network Rail—can get it all right. It needs the intent, collaboration and commitment of all parties. I think that that is there. Everyone has a role to play.
Different developments in different cities must take different approaches. Dundee is doing good work on its development but decisions that are made about Dundee will be different from the ones that will be made about Waverley, and those will be different from the ones that will be made about Queen Street. We are talking about finding ways of working together to create solutions, rather than targeting one organisation to carry the burden of the necessary integration, if you follow what I mean.
Mr Verster, you said that some of the evidence has not been helpful. However, witness after witness has told us that the problem with having a proper dialogue and proper collaboration has been Network Rail. I can understand why you might feel that that is somewhat unhelpful, and it seems, from what you have said, that Network Rail has suddenly woken up and realised that things cannot go on like that. Why were you previously unable to put into practice all the virtuous things that you have laid out before the committee today?
The thing that I referred to as being unhelpful was the Network Rail correspondence. I did not say that any of the evidence from other witnesses was unhelpful. During the past couple of weeks, I have carefully followed the evidence that has been presented to the committee and it was all helpful.
With regard to some of the correspondence that has been exchanged between parties, we could have done that better. I will give you an example. At one stage, Sustrans was receiving correspondence from us that looked like the type of correspondence that we would send to a member of the public. Sustrans is not a member of the public; it is an influential stakeholder and we should have approached it differently.
My view is clear. We have a different business now. We are setting up the alliance as a different business that has a significant and relentless focus on the customer.
A couple of years ago, the rail industry was fragmented. Practices and ways of working developed in various parts of the industry that are different to the way in which we want to serve the fare-paying customer. One of the things that Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government have put together is the alliance idea. It is a leading concept in the rail industry that involves bringing elements back together again so that there are fewer interfaces and more of a focus on the end customer.
11:45
Can I take that as a commitment from Network Rail that it will have a more constructive role in the alliance in the future than we have seen in the past?
You can absolutely take that as a commitment.
Thank you.
Can I give you an example of a potential change in practice? The committee has heard evidence that Scottish stations fund moneys cannot be used for improvements to areas that immediately surround a railway station, even where they focus on improving the accessibility of the station for customers. Is that a correct state of affairs? Would you like the fund criteria to be revised to allow the fund to finance such improvements?
The stations fund can be used for applications that the rules that govern it allow for. When we consider the stations fund and the City of Edinburgh Council submission to it, it is really important that we realise that we have a very clear set of rules according to which the administering of the fund is executed. Network Rail is not a funder; we just administer the fund. Aidan Grisewood may talk later about how the administering of the fund is being changed. In very simple terms, it is about doing stuff that helps the railway and passengers. Rightly or wrongly, that is what the fund focuses on.
A very important part of the concept behind the fund is that anyone who wants to use part of it must get their own development and feasibility work up to a stage of maturity such that the funders can say that £1.7 million—or whatever the amount is—is exactly what will be required because the design is mature. That is so that the funders do not sign up to a £1.7 million estimate that turns into a £17 million estimate later on, which happens with capital projects. It is really important that whoever makes an application to the fund does the groundwork really well.
I think that the question relates to Haymarket, so I will talk about it, if the committee does not mind. We have worked closely and will continue to work closely with the City of Edinburgh Council to look at issues such as access from the Dalry side and the possibilities for better access for cyclists. We will do that and we have to do that. Just this week, we opened our bike and go scheme at Haymarket, and we have rented out our first bicycle there, which is really exciting for us.
We want to continue those relationships and develop that scheme. However, there are huge demands on the stations fund. There are new stations in the offing that may be bought from that fund. The fund must be approached within the governing rules that are set out for it.
I support what Phil Verster said. Transport Scotland has approved the stations fund criteria, too.
There are important principles behind the fund. First, it must be ensured that its impact is maximised. That requires emphasis on leverage and third-party funding elsewhere to ensure that we get the most out of it. As Mr Verster pointed out, there is a limited budget, so ensuring that we maximise its impact is a key principle.
The second key element is that, ultimately, the fund is borrowed as part of Network Rail’s regulatory asset base and is therefore subject to regulatory rules to ensure that what is undertaken through it can demonstrably add value for rail passengers. There is a set of regulatory requirements for the sorts of things that can be specifically funded by a stations fund, which are set by the Office of Rail Regulation, considering the asset base and the borrowing that can be undertaken.
To go back to the previous discussion about the red-line issue, there is an important distinction between, on the one hand, the engagement that needs to happen and that is actively encouraged through the stations fund in terms of the participation of local authorities, RTPs and other third parties, the value that is placed upon third-party contributions and demonstrably showing something is consistent with local, regional and national plans and, on the other hand, the funding.
A major station development presents a huge opportunity to get parties together, work collaboratively and think about how the overall end-to-end journey can be improved for the passenger’s benefit. Similarly, the stations fund is a reasonable slab of money that has been committed to improve stations, and it presents an opportunity to bring people together to think about what is best for the end-to-end journey. That means working closely with local authorities and RTPs to put together proposals.
Ultimately, however, the funding that can be presented through the fund must be predominantly for the benefit of rail passengers, so projects such as road improvements are clearly outwith its scope—although, if third parties made such investments, it would be a positive demonstration that leverage is being brought and the stations fund is maximising its impact.
We move on to the access to Edinburgh Waverley station.
On the theme of consultation and communication, why was vehicle access to Edinburgh Waverley station removed?
In May last year, road vehicle access to the concourse area was removed at short notice. That was triggered by a fatality—it was a safety incident. A vehicle that was approaching the ramps reversed and did funny things, the driver lost control of the vehicle and that had the tragic consequence of severely hurting a pedestrian, who died. For safety reasons, the decision was made to limit road access into Waverley.
To put that into context, Waverley was the last of the stations that Network Rail manages in Scotland and the rest of the UK that still allowed vehicles on to the concourse area. The decision was arrived at over time for security reasons and, in the end, was made for safety reasons. It is always easier to take stock in hindsight of how things were done at the time and it is fair to say that the consultation could have been better. There are ways to contain and mitigate risk in the short term that might not be feasible in the long term but, in the future, we must think about how we do things in the short term to allow all the other affected parties to adjust. That is a lesson that we can take away from Waverley. However, the decision was made for the strongest safety reasons at the time.
You talked earlier about partnership and you will recall that, last week, we took evidence from the transport convener from the City of Edinburgh Council who, to be frank, was kept in the dark about the matter. She told the committee that she read about it in the local press. That does not seem to be good partnership working. Why was the council not brought into the equation before the decision was made?
Mr Stewart, I can only agree with you that the consultation should not work like that. It should be better, and it can be better.
I will give you an example. Since I joined the business a month ago, customers have been knocking on my door about cycling access at Waverley. I have gone down and looked at how the ramps work and how deliveries work, and I have also looked at how our risk assessments have been done. I think that there is a different solution out there that can be implemented, which could be a lot better for cycling—
I will stop you there, as I will ask you some questions about that later. I know that the convener is conscious of the time.
I have some specific questions for you. Some committee members, including me, have picked up informally that the reason for the decision, notwithstanding the dreadful fatality, was specific security advice. I ask you on the record whether you have had specific security advice from the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, the security services or the police that says that below-ground stations such as Waverley should no longer have vehicle access. That is important for our consideration. Have you received any specific advice? I do not need to know the content of the advice, merely whether you have received any. If you are not able to tell me now, perhaps you could write to the committee clerk and tell us whether that information has been received.
I can take that away and correspond with the committee on it separately. What I can say at this point is that, although some of the evidence sessions highlighted concern that the decision to close Waverley to vehicles was somehow the result of a diktat—I think that that is the word that was used—from somewhere in the UK or advice from somewhere else, I can confirm that that is not the case. The decision was made locally. It was made by the local team on the basis of the safety considerations.
I will address the separate question of whether information, instruction or guidance was given for security reasons separately, if that is okay.
Yes. I will not continue with that; I merely say—as I think that the concern referred to was mine—that whether the decision was made locally is not really the issue. A local team could make a decision to close Waverley to vehicles on security advice that was received from elsewhere. That would be perfectly appropriate and understandable. The committee just wishes to know whether security advice led to vehicles being prevented from going into Waverley.
We will respond on that.
You mentioned delivery vehicles and rail replacement buses, which are still allowed on to the concourse. You can see that there is a potential dilemma: on the one hand, you are saying, “We’re stopping vehicles going into Waverley”, but on the other hand you are saying, “By the way, we’re still having delivery vehicles coming in.” If the ban is for safety reasons, why do you still have those vehicles going on to the Waverley concourse?
As you can imagine, accommodating delivery vehicles involves significantly fewer vehicle movements and therefore significantly less risk for our customers. Also, delivery vehicles can be scheduled. We are in the process of rescheduling delivery vehicles to the hours of the night, when customers are not on the concourse. You will see very few delivery vehicles during the day that pose any threat to customers.
The delivery vehicles are critical because they keep all our customer retail facilities on the station going. We are also doing interesting things with regard to complicated articulated vehicle deliveries, which pose a risk to cyclists using the ramps as well as to the infrastructure.
The issue of delivery vehicles is more about controlling vehicles rather than having unfettered access and many vehicle movements across the concourse area.
I believe that rail replacement buses also use the concourse.
At times. They use the ramps, but in a controlled fashion.
I will come back to you later on bike access.
Mr Verster, you made a commitment this morning—it is still morning—to write to the committee outlining the security advice on which the decision was taken to ban vehicle access to Waverley station. When you do that, could you also address Network Rail’s point in February 2012 that it was seeking to ban vehicles because it was the run-up to the 2012 Olympic games and there was an anti-terrorism purpose in banning vehicles? If you could cover that point as well when you write to the committee, that would be helpful.
12:00To go back to the point about consultation, I was interested that when you mentioned the three Cs earlier—collaboration, co-ordination and consultation—you hesitated before you introduced the word “consultation”. To be honest, I am not surprised that you did that because the evidence that the committee has received has been quite damning in regard to Network Rail’s lack of consultation on the decision to ban vehicles from Waverley station.
If I can just remind you, we had six separate pieces of evidence from our witnesses. When I asked on 3 June,
“What consultation did Network Rail engage in prior to imposing the station vehicle ban?”,
Tony Kenmuir from the Scottish Taxi Federation replied,
“None whatsoever”
and John Lauder from Sustrans said
“none”.
When asked whether there had been any formal consultation, Nathan Kaczmarski from Cycling Scotland said:
“Not with us.”—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 3 June 2015; c 11, 13.]
In a previous session, Anne MacLean of the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland said:
“There was no consultation with us at all”.
John Warren of Transform Scotland said:
“There was none at all.”—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 20 May 2015; c 21, 31.]
When asked about consultation last week, Councillor Lesley Hinds said:
“There was no consultation of the council on taking all taxis out of the station.”—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 10 June 2015; c 9.]
What does it say about the reputation of Network Rail, as a public body funded by the taxpayer and accountable to ministers, that there has been no consultation or a distinct lack of consultation with your key stakeholders?
Over the past seven years, we have invested around £50 million in Edinburgh Waverley and all of that investment has been in the interests of customers. All those changes and all the specification aspects and what we have implemented were consulted on. The one bit that was not thoroughly consulted on was the quick decision on the access of vehicles to the concourse area itself. I just want to put in context the fact that these are really big programmes and consultation around them is not as you have just portrayed it. Let us take EGIP, which is a £740 million programme, as an example: we have had more than 400 consultations with communities on EGIP.
That is fine, but we are talking specifically about access to Scotland’s major urban railway stations. We are talking about access to a major rail station in our capital city, which is the gateway to the rest of Scotland, and the overwhelming evidence that we have received is that Network Rail has failed in its public duty to consult with stakeholders on access to that station.
As I have indicated already, there is huge scope for improvement in regard to consultation. I put that in the context of what has been done to date at Waverley, which has included multiple parties and multiple groups. We have quarterly meetings with the City of Edinburgh Council to discuss its aspirations and we also have meetings with accessibility groups and interest groups. I take the point very firmly that there is room for improvement and we will endeavour to improve.
I accept that there have been on-going discussions with the City of Edinburgh Council over a period of time, but it clearly feels as if there has been, to use your phrase, a diktat in terms of decisions being imposed on it by Network Rail. What steps will you take to improve the relationship with the City of Edinburgh Council?
One of the biggest steps that we have taken is to bring the train operating business and the Scotland route Network Rail business under one umbrella to create a singular focus on putting the customer first. How we set up the business and are reorganising it is all about putting the customer first and delivering for the customer.
For the next phases of development, such as those around Waverley and where we can locate the taxi rank at the old Fruitmarket, we will engage with Sustrans, the south east of Scotland transport partnership and the City of Edinburgh Council to discuss ideas fully with them at the planning phase and not at the delivery phase. I can see that, if you start to discuss what you are going to do at the delivery phase, it is too late; the discussions need to be at the planning phase, and that is what we are moving towards.
There is a huge consultation going on at all times between our strategy and planning business, the RTPs and local authorities at the regular rail forums. It continues throughout the year and there are some good relationships there. At times, it might feel like some decisions are not thoroughly consulted on, and I think that we can do better.
You talked about putting the customer first, and I want to ask you about putting the disabled customer first. We heard clear evidence from organisations representing disabled people and people who have disability and mobility issues that the accessibility of Edinburgh Waverley station is not as good as it was and not as good as it should be. Notwithstanding the investment that Network Rail has made, those groups feel that the experience for a disabled passenger is worse than it was.
That evidence has been useful for us. We need to learn how to do these things differently and better.
Waverley now has step-free access and lifts at all its entrances. I will expand on that a little bit. For example, there is step-free access from the New Street car park, plus people who travel with people who have reduced mobility can park for free for 40 minutes so that they can accompany the passenger all the way on to the concourse. Based on feedback on the Calton Road side that we have had from stakeholders, we are looking at alternative arrangements for shelters and operational fixes to allow for the better accommodation of people who have reduced mobility.
We are doing so much for Waverley as it is now, relative to where it was before, to allow access for people who have reduced mobility. We have taken audits and feedback from interest groups such as Deafblind Scotland and we have an action plan for better signage and to improve the railway and the station for people who have reduced mobility. I know that we are listening and I think that we are making it better.
Some of my colleagues might wish to pursue that issue later in the meeting.
I move on to access to the station for cyclists, which is an interest of my colleagues Sarah Boyack MSP and Alison Johnstone MSP. We have all written to Network Rail on the subject. The perception of access to Edinburgh Waverley at the moment is best summed up in the phrase “Fortress Waverley”, which is used by cyclists. I was struck when you, as a person who comes from a country that has a better record on cycling than we do, talked about the bike-and-go scheme. Cyclists view with incredulity a bike-and-go scheme at Edinburgh Waverley that involves cyclists having to push their bike into and out of the station. You aspire to implement a bike-and-go scheme, but you are not able to facilitate cyclists cycling into and out of the station. That seems rather absurd.
I can only agree. That is one of the reasons why I take a personal interest in the situation. I have gone to look at it and I am working with my teams.
This is the way I think about it. When we have to fix things and do them differently from how they have been done before, I am keen to take the people in my teams with me in terms of how they look at the future, how they see our focus on customers and how they adjust their approach to making decisions so that we add up to a team of leaders that make decisions in the customer’s interest.
At Waverley, we are working through the decisions that have been made and looking at how to change them into something that is more customer friendly. I see a huge opportunity for cycling at Waverley and a change from where we are now.
I am reassured by that statement and the tone and content of your responses. In January 2014, Network Rail was willing to adapt access so that the north ramp would allow cyclists to cycle into the station, but it then reversed that decision and denied cyclists access. Can you give a commitment today that you will revisit that decision and look at reopening the north ramp to cyclists to ease the pressure on the very narrow space that cyclists, pedestrians, tourists and others have to occupy as they are moving into and out of the station?
The current practice where the cyclist must push his or her bicycle on the same pathway that pedestrians use is not sustainable. I do not want to make a commitment about the north ramp, convener, but I can make a commitment that we will come up with something for either the north or the south ramp that will work better. One solution could be to remove articulated and other vehicles from the south ramp and use it.
I can say that the commitment that you are asking for would be an easy one to give because I have already started the process and we will complete it in the next couple of weeks. We will start to put something better in place.
First, I thank the committee for conducting this inquiry. My constituents raise the issue with me regularly. Having been the first transport minister and kicked off the big investment in the railway, I am proud that there has been huge change to Edinburgh Waverley, but it is a source of massive annoyance that some areas have gone backwards. The ramps are a problem for cyclists, but also for older people, people who have disabilities and passengers who have luggage. There is just not enough space. I go there regularly with my bike.
The issues are about getting to the station, accessing the station and getting on and off trains. The challenge is that all of that needs to work for all passengers all the time.
I had a great meeting with Susan Anderson and her colleagues last month. I took one constituent who is in a wheelchair and one who is blind, and I brought my cycling eyes and the views of lots of constituents. The staff were enthusiastic and keen to listen to us, but the reality check on a lot of the ideas that we were talking about was a revelation. A lot of work needs to be done there.
I welcome Mr Verster’s commitment on the ramps. You have no idea how annoying they are for huge numbers of passengers. You talked about improvements, and the ramps need to be fixed. The escalators to the north are brilliant, but often one of them is not working and we see people with luggage, particularly those who are older or have families, really struggling because they have to revert to the steps.
People who have used the Calton Road drop-off point have reported to me that, even when they have phoned in advance and called when they got there, they have had to wait in the cold for a long time.
12:15Every single entrance must be checked from all perspectives. The crucial issue is the physical changes. The signage is not good enough, particularly when people are changing trains. It is also a problem if the arrangements are different from one week to the next. Commuters must be dealt with, but in addition people use the station for leisure purposes and others are tourists, so not everyone has day-to-day knowledge of the station.
There is also a staff issue. Staff in the station must be geared up to support people with disabilities.
I have seen the new cycle innovation plan. It looks wonderful on the page, but translating it into practice is another matter. We held a meeting with Spokes. I think that it was Des Bradley who was the nominated person from ScotRail that week, and he took a lot of detailed questions about matters that need to be fixed. The mood music is fantastic. If the ramp issue can be addressed, people across the city will celebrate that. However, a lot of other matters need to be addressed, particularly the need to make cycle access into the station easier. There is a need to talk to cyclists.
At the Calton Road access, I was shown a steep cycle rail beside the steps, where a person has to push their bicycle up. Not all cyclists have the physical capacity to do that. The range of users must be looked at.
There is hope in the improvement plan for the future of cycling, but we must see the changes implemented in practice.
I return to my first point. Passengers need to be able to get to the station and into and out of it, and they also need to be able to get on and off trains. A big issue that was raised at Monday’s meeting was access for bikes on trains. The idea of having bikes at the station that people can rent would suit a lot of people. However, there are also people who will want to take their bikes with them—for example, on the Borders railway—and simply having two spaces for bikes will not work.
There is very little of what you have said that I do not fully and whole-heartedly agree with. It is an absolute objective for us to provide multimodal abilities for our customers so that they can travel on our trains with their bicycles effectively and easily. Together with the idea of travelling as a passenger and then renting a bicycle, that contributes to the Scottish Government’s broader focus on encouraging 10 per cent of journeys to be made by bicycle by 2020. We are very much switched on to that.
You are right that the solutions lie in the details. Calton Road, for example, is an access point, and we must consider how we use the lifts for bicycles. On the contingency plans for escalators, we should communicate more clearly that the plan is not for people who have big luggage to use the stairs or the steps, but for them to use the lifts.
As you say, the issue is about the awareness of our staff on the ground and their ability to help people. We will take your comments away in the constructive way that they have been shared.
It would be good to get a timetable so that we know when changes will be made.
As part of what I want to offer the committee, I am definitely willing to provide a timetable for Waverley station’s work programme. I am also willing to come back to the committee every year or every six months—whatever you think would be appropriate—to give you an update on where we are with the issues that we have discussed this morning.
That offer is much appreciated.
Sarah Boyack mentioned the work that was done on the stairs at the Calton Road entrance to allow customers to push their bicycles up into the station. It was pointed out to me that the groove on the stairs is too near the wall and that a person cannot push their bike up because there is not enough width for the handlebars. I have looked at the stairs and I agree that the groove is far too close to the wall—you would not be able to push a bicycle up the groove.
Thank you for that—we will definitely take that point away with us.
How will the Network Rail and ScotRail alliance work in practice? What will be the advantages for passengers, particularly around improvements to the accessibility of Scottish railway stations?
In practice, the alliance is a combination of two businesses. It involves putting two teams together. More than that, it is about taking part of one organisation and moving it to another organisation, and vice versa. It is not just about bundling two businesses together, side by side, with an uncomfortable relationship; it is an integration of two businesses and the creation of a one-team entity that relentlessly focuses on the customer. It is about taking all our business strategy, our actions and our team focus back to that one single focus on our customers and growing our business in their interests.
In response to your question, I see that as the biggest single change from where we were before. Most of the things that get done in complicated industries and businesses depend on the starting point, on the orientation of the business and on what the teams think they are there to achieve. In our business, we are setting out a focus for our teams to succeed on customer focus.
The initiatives range from long-term strategic plans, which will now have that customer focus aspect to them, down to shorter-term plans involving the day-to-day management of station facilities and station conditions. In that spectrum, we involve parts of Network Rail that are looking forward 50 years in their planning horizon and other parts of our alliance that look forward and plan on a two-week cycle in order to deliver a better customer experience. We are now bringing all of that together under a single focus.
That is an interesting model but, for ordinary passengers, particularly those with a disability, you will be judged on what actions you have taken and how you have delivered. Do you agree with that?
I do. In order for us to better understand and continuously engage with disability groups, we are putting together a customer equality forum, where we will include all the disability groups, other interest groups and other stakeholders. That forum will be the place where we keep pace with concerns and opinions about particular issues.
I recently met the chairs of the RTPs. I have committed to seeing the RTPs once a year and we will send senior representation to every quarterly meeting.
You are right. In the end, customers will measure us by what happens on the ground, and that is what we will focus on. By using the stakeholder forums, we will create opportunities for people to feed back to us if parts of our delivery do not meet requirements.
At every transport conference that I have ever gone to, we have talked about integration between different modes of transport. People who use rail do not just use rail; they use buses, they might cycle and they might walk, and signage will be crucial. How important is the signing of other modes, such as signs showing where the bus is, where the tram is, how to get a bike or where the walking route is—say, between Central and Queen Street stations? All those things are vital, but there have been complaints about a lack of signage. Will the new integration mean that a better job is done with signage across Scottish stations?
The answer is unambiguously yes. We have a committed obligation to introduce better wayfinding and signage to stations and other attractions in cities and towns where we have services and where attractions lead people to do other things. That is good in so many ways—not just for passengers, who will understand where to go, but because part of our strategy to develop our footfall and customer base is to provide more clarity for our customers about attractions that exist in other cities. Every time customers understand better what exciting opportunities there are in other cities, that means more journeys for us. We are committed to that and we have a plan and a programme to deliver it. We will come back and update the committee on that in the future.
This is my final question, as I am conscious of the time.
Witnesses in our survey—incidentally, we received one of the biggest responses to a survey by any committee, which we are pleased about—called for an increase of well-sited and secure cycle parking at railway stations. That is something that your home nation is very good at. We must do more on that because some people turn up with bikes and find that there is no secure access for their bikes or that they will not be covered. Secure cycle parking is something that the Netherlands does extremely well. What plans do you have to improve that aspect and encourage active travel?
We will add more than 3,500 cycle berths in the first three years of our tenure. Part of that is the creation of cycle points and cycle parks; we have a clear station-by-station plan and commitment to add those additional cycle spaces. We have a clear programme for that and will share it with the committee.
The committee heard during evidence that Network Rail normally focuses on access issues within its stations and leaves the development of the surrounding areas to other authorities, particularly local authorities. What steps will you take to improve collaboration and co-ordination between the areas that Network Rail is responsible for, and those that local authorities are responsible for, in order to deliver the integrated solutions that we want?
Thank you for that, convener. I do not see any way of doing that except through multiparty collaboration and a focus on the customer. A structure that would mean that at least one party must trigger that process would be good practice, but from that point onwards all interested parties must collaborate and work together to produce a seamless experience for customers. The ScotRail alliance has accountability to provide sponsors and clients for those large projects, and those sponsors and clients will start the ball rolling and get all parties round the table. At that point complicated issues can arise. For example, at Glasgow Queen Street some of the contractual interaction with the development of Buchanan Galleries is an interesting and important phase of creating an integrated solution. Every project will have different challenges and issues, and those will be in the hands of all parties involved, who should work together to reach an outcome.
Sometimes compromises will be made, and some solutions will not be affordable. Those difficult decisions do not depend on just one party, and no single party can be accountable for that. I commit, however, always to be in a position to start the ball rolling on cross-party collaboration. From that point onwards, it is very much in the hands of all contributing parties.
12:30
Some of our witnesses expressed concern about the governance arrangements that apply to decisions that are taken by Network Rail. Can you say a little about Network Rail’s decision-making process on access to stations? You talked about decisions having been taken locally at Waverley. Which of the decisions are local, which are Scottish and which are UK decisions? In view of the feedback that you have had and the evidence that we have taken, what steps are you taking to increase the transparency of your decision-making process, particularly at Scotland level?
The division of responsibilities that it is really important to understand, because it will help you to picture how governance works, is the division between funder and deliverer. Aidan Grisewood could probably add to this discussion with clarification of the roles of the funder.
Sometimes, Network Rail is perceived as a funder, but it is not. It manages funds, such as the Scottish stations fund, according to a set of criteria that must be met. The governance, rules and communication around how a fund is assigned and allocated are clear and transparent.
Having distinguished between the funding chain and the delivery chain, we can look further down the delivery chain, where the governance sits with the set of sponsors and clients who work with Susan Anderson, who is my route commercial manager. In her team, there is a sponsor and client responsibility. The sponsor and client says, “Those are the outputs that the funder wants. We are now going to have a project over a year that will deliver it.” The sponsor and client must ensure that delivery stays on track neither less than was specified nor more than was specified, which would bring about a cost overrun.
The client-sponsor role is important. It sits within the ScotRail alliance; that is quite exciting because, for the first time, that sponsorship role is closely related to the train-operating company part, so there can be a link to the primacy of the customer.
You can think of the client and sponsor as the conductor who ensures that the orchestra stays in tune. Below that, there is a project governance structure that can involve different project contractual agreements, including arm’s-length contracting, alliances or partnerships. Following on from that, there is a part of Network Rail called Network Rail infrastructure projects that takes big projects and sets up big programmes of work, such as EGIP, which represents £742 million of spending and includes work at Queen Street and Waverley. The decisions that are made in those projects are open to discussion on a regular basis. We are currently conducting a review of EGIP with stakeholders. We share governance, in terms of decisions that we make on EGIP, with Transport Scotland, which supports and helps the stakeholders and the sponsors and clients to keep us on the right track.
That is the structure of governance, but I can add one more thing. Since taking up this role, I have implemented a monthly governance review in week 2 of every railway period, whereby the projects report back to me on their progress. We close the loop between the big programmes that work on the long multiyear timelines through that monthly review, in which the sponsor sits in the same room with me and my team to give feedback on their progress.
What steps are you taking to increase the transparency of the governance and decision-making processes that you have described?
I think that Susan Anderson will take the opportunity to discuss some of the changes that we are now making to governance. We have already decided that we will involve RTPs, councils and interested parties in the regular update on the programmes.
We have also introduced a control room concept, whereby we use visualisation as the means with which to impart information. Everything that we want to talk about is on the wall; it is not hidden in a room, but is open and available to anyone who wants to come into our office. We have a weekly meeting to measure and talk through the progress of all our projects, and we have invited Transport Scotland into those meetings. There is full transparency and visibility on everything that we do. If there is anything about any specific project that anybody wants information on, they can let us know and we will share it with them. We are fully transparent and visible.
We are going to move on because of time restrictions.
Mr Verster, in your opening comments, you talked about putting “the customer first” in a “seamless passenger experience”. Yet the committee has heard concerns from witnesses about the apparent unwillingness of Network Rail to engage in access issues related to the redevelopment of Glasgow Queen Street station. Do you consider those concerns to be justified? If so, how is Network Rail now working with stakeholders to address those concerns?
I think that the concerns are justified. The information and the evidence that we have had from the committee are very clear.
As an organisation, we have opportunities to improve consultation, especially consultation outside the TAWS order, and to create that seamless interface on which Sustrans has commented, which I think is very important. We have already adjusted our approach to Queen Street station and I am confident that, going forward, our consultation with stakeholders, including Sustrans, on Queen Street station will be better.
I know that time is limited, but can you expand on what you mean when you say that you have changed your approach to Queen Street station?
We have had two phases of consultation for the Queen Street redevelopment, as a result of which we have made significant changes to the station’s design. The changes take on board the views in consultation responses. For example, the previous design had the access ramp for the station outwith the glass frontage, but it will now be contained within the frontage of the station, so that there is weatherproof access that feels more a part of the footprint of the station.
We have also taken on board the comments to the effect that the taxi drop-off facility was not part of the station footprint. It will now be enshrined as part of the Buchanan Galleries development, which is going on in parallel with the station development. We have also taken on board comments on the siting of toilets, left-luggage facilities and baby-changing facilities to make it a more customer-focused environment.
We are also very alive to the issues that Sustrans has raised regarding the need for cycle-hub provision. We are looking at facilities in Dundas Street and a facility off Cathedral Street.
As a result of all that consultation, a load of issues have come back to us that we welcomed and are working hard to address.
I may come back to you at some stage about the taxi rank, but that is very interesting to hear.
The Strathclyde partnership for transport took the “unprecedented step” of contacting the Office of Rail Regulation about the redevelopment of the North Hanover Street car park at Queen Street station, because it felt that Network Rail had not properly represented its views on the matter. How did that situation arise, and can you assure us that it cannot happen again, and tell us whether a mechanism is now in place that would allow SPT, for example, to make that representation itself?
I am not familiar with the details of that particular representation—
The main issue is that SPT went through your organisation and was not, in its view, represented appropriately. That was accepted by the ORR; I believe that SPT then managed to make the representation itself. Is there any mechanism for SPT to bypass you in a situation such as that and to go to the ORR?
Instead of commenting on whether there is a mechanism to bypass us, we should get to a situation in which there is no need for them to bypass us. We need enough collaboration on the ground, enough interaction and a forum where people not only talk, but have a genuine intent to listen. Sometimes you can talk to people without feeling that there is a genuine intent to listen; from the evidence that has come to the committee, one of the messages that is really clear to me is that the approach needs to be about listening and listening more.
For the Queen Street project there is a forum through which stakeholders participate in the consultation. We will ensure that that forum works better.
We will hold you to that.
Network Rail enjoys wide-ranging permitted development rights. The committee has heard evidence that that means that Network Rail does not normally engage with local authorities on planning matters, or contribute to improvements and co-ordination with other transport modes around stations, which we have discussed on a number of occasions. Is that correct and, if so, how do you intend to improve engagement on planning?
I can see that permitted development rights can lead to some developments being progressed reasonably quickly, with a big focus on delivering the outputs. I can also see that consultation processes are really important and that a consultation process will not always give answers that will make everyone happy.
I have not looked in detail at cases in which permitted development rights in Scotland have been used or have caused consultations to be less effective. What we have to do—this is similar to the message that we have given on one or two previous examples—is ensure that even when developments are proceeding under permitted development rights, our sponsor and client that looks after those developments ensures that consultation is triggered properly and that all local authorities and other interested parties are consulted. I would give the same answer as I have given on any of the other examples, including Queen Street, that this is all about intent and how we focus on the customer. We have an opportunity to improve that.
It would be interesting to know whether that was the case for Queen Street or any other example. It suggests that there might be that red line that we talked about earlier on, whereby you are not taking into account the other modes of transport that get passengers to the station in the first place. It might be helpful if you could come back to us with something on that.
We will do that. Thank you very much, Mr Dornan.
We are all desperately keen to get out of here, but I have three quick questions for Transport Scotland first.
Transport Scotland sets the strategic direction for Network Rail Scotland and specifies the ScotRail franchise. Do you think that that arrangement gives you the necessary muscle to ensure that those organisations take the right action when they interact with other modes of transport?
12:45
It gives us big opportunities. The opportunity was taken in the specification for the current franchise, and the consultation that took place, to focus on integration. The emphasis was on quality, not just price, and weighty marks were awarded in relation to commitments around integration and, as part of that, accessibility, over and above the legal requirements expected of the operator. All of that has now been fed through, and the reaction of the successful bidder, Abellio, in running the franchise and in its cycle plan, is a direct consequence of our putting in that specification the opportunity for it to win the franchise by showing that it could make such improvements.
That wide range of contractual obligations, which relate to a whole series of commitments around integration—for example, signage, which has been mentioned, provision for cyclists and improved spontaneous travel for disabled passengers—is now in the specification. That was a huge opportunity. On the franchise side, those are now embedded in the contract.
When it comes to the infrastructure, there is a high-level output specification around the five-year transport plan, and there are some big projects within that. There are also high-level specifications for those projects—for EGIP, the Borders railway and the like. In those specifications, we have set out the key outputs that we expect. It is then for Network Rail to take that work forward and engage locally on things such as station improvements to ensure that the accessibility opportunity is fully realised.
Where we see that something is not as positive as we would like it to be, we have a track record of engaging with Network Rail and ScotRail to ensure that it happens. Provision for cyclists at Queen Street station is an example of that. We made representations about what could be done to improve cycling facilities in the Queen Street proposals and ensured that conversations with cycling groups happened.
On stakeholder engagement, we host regular stakeholder sessions on both the Borders project and EGIP. We do quite a bit to encourage that engagement.
Transport Scotland specified and funds the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme and the Glasgow Queen Street proposals, which you have already mentioned. We have also heard from people about some of the problems at Haymarket. Consideration of wider access issues appears not to have been an integral feature of those projects from the outset. Can you explain why?
We set the high-level specifications, and for a project such as EGIP, we set a very high-level specification. Inevitably, that is driven by quantifiable elements, such as the percentage increase in capacity that we expect throughout the network, or our expectation that eight-car train sets will run out of Queen Street and that there will be journey time improvements between Edinburgh and Glasgow Queen Street. We do not spell out all the integration aspects. That is partly because we expect those things to be inherent within the station redesign, and partly because they are difficult to quantify at a high level.
We would not want to pre-empt things and say that the integration proposition is X, Y or Z, because inherently it has to be developed as part of the detailed design, which means collaborating and working with local stakeholders to ensure that that is done correctly. If I were to take a lesson from this discussion, it might be that we need to spell that out, by means of a high-level reminder of our transport objectives.
As a funder, we set objectives at a high strategic level. If what we expect in terms of improved accessibility and integration needs to be spelled out—albeit at a high level, so as not to pre-empt the results of valuable discussions with stakeholders—we can take that away and consider it as part of the overall industry effort to improve the way that we work.
I notice that the national transport strategy is to be refreshed. We have heard from many witnesses about their experience of transport integration, particularly in major railway stations. Will that experience be reflected in any refresh of the guidelines?
I do not want to pre-empt what the minister will sign off, but the evidence that has been presented to the committee will obviously be an important source of evidence, as will the committee’s report. The minister is already on record as saying that the refresh is not about completely redefining our objectives, and that integration remains a key objective. In that context, it is therefore sensible for everything that comes out of the committee to feed into that work, and access to major stations is an important consideration.
The minister has already spoken on the record about the need for clarity in relation to different organisations’ roles. As we have heard, it is quite a busy field: on the rail side we have Network Rail and ScotRail—there is some alignment there—but we also have the RTPs and the local authorities. There is an opportunity to be clear about their respective roles, and the minister has already spoken about the issue in relation to the strategy.
I thank our witnesses for their evidence. In particular, I thank Mr Verster for his openness and willingness to engage so constructively with the committee. We note your commitment to send us some information on the security advice about and the rationale for restricting access to Waverley station. We look forward to receiving that. I wonder whether, for completeness, you could send us some information on the improvement in air quality since vehicles were required to leave Waverley station. It would also be helpful to know about passenger numbers—that is, the annual figure for the number of people who pass through Waverley.
We will do that.
We also note your offer to come before the committee every six months or annually—you might live to regret that.
I am sure. [Laughter.]
We will certainly take you up on your offer, which we appreciate. There are no further questions, so I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
We will have a short suspension to allow the witnesses to leave the room.
12:52 Meeting suspended.Previous
Glasgow Prestwick Airport