A passenger perspective on the Northern franchise Sharon Hedges May 2014
Passenger Focus • Independent watchdog for Britain’s rail passengers** • Extensive research to inform evidencebased campaigning • Aim to influence decisions on behalf of passengers • Work with DfT and industry to encourage passenger interests to be placed at heart of franchise specification and bid proposals * Also bus, coach and tram passenger representation in England outside of London London. New role proposed for road users.
Topics: • National Rail Passenger Survey results g p priorities for improvement p • Passenger • Qualitative research conducted with Northern and TPE passengers • Transparency and passenger engagement • High level recommendations for franchise
TREND IN OVERALL SATISFACTION 100
90 86
%S SATISFIED
80
80
87 82
88 82
86 82
86 83
87
86
86
80
80
83
84
84 78
76 70
60
50
40 Spring 09
Autumn 09
Spring 10
Regional
Autumn 10
Spring 11
Autumn 11
Spring 12
Autumn 12
Northern
Trend in overall satisfaction
Spring 13
Autumn 13
TREND IN OVERALL SATISFACTION: NORTHERN BY ROUTE 100
93 90
% SA ATISFIED
87 86 84 83 80
86 85 84 80 78
90 88
87 86
85 83
83
79
87 86 84 82
79 78 76
78
74
86
73
70
83 80 77 76 75 72
82 78 75 74
Short commute average: 83% Manchester and Liverpool, Tyne Tees and Wear Interurban average: 87% South and East Yorkshire Rural average 83% Lancashire and Cumbria, West and North Yorkshire
60
50 Spring 10
Autumn 10
Spring 11
Autumn 11
Spring 12
Lancashire and Cumbria
Manchester and Liverpool
Tyne Tees and Wear
West and North Yorkshire
Autumn 12
Spring 13
South and East Yorkshire
Trend in overall satisfaction
Autumn 13
Northern: overall satisfaction by route and journey type (autumn 2013)
100
80
82
90
82
77
75 75
72
71
75
66
70 % satis sfied
91
88
90
75 63
60 50
44
40 30 20 10 0 Lancashire and Cumbria
Manchester and Liverpool
Commute
South and East Yorkshire
Business
Tyne Tees and Wear
Leisure
West and North Yorkshire
Drivers of customer satisfaction – Spring 2013/ Autumn 2013 (bar size shows share of overall satisfaction due to factor)
Northern Rail
Regional
Punctuality/reliability Cleanliness inside train The ease of being able to get on/off the train Comfort of the seating area Provision of information about train times/platforms Value for money Overall station environment Others
Key drivers analysis
Drivers of customer dissatisfaction – Autumn 2012/ Spring 2013 (bar size shows share of overall satisfaction due to factor)
Northern Rail
Regional
H How ttrain i company d dealt lt with ith delays d l Punctuality/reliability Length of time journey was scheduled to take Cleanliness inside train How request to station staff was handled Comfort of the seating area Ease of being able to get on and off the train Others
Key drivers analysis
% satisfied
Northern: satisfaction by route (autumn 2013)
58
58
51
57
26
33
23
76
76
75
65
42
Lancashire Manchester South and and Cumbria and Liverpool East Yorkshire
70
73
65
63
60
56
53
46
35
78
80
77
Tyne Tees and Wear
West and North Yorkshire
Overall
Punctuality
How well dealt with delays
Value for money
Cleanliness inside train
Drivers of customer satisfaction – change over last two years
50%
% SATISFIED D
40% 35% 30%
20%
40%
31% 23% 22% 15%
10% 7% 0%
38%
37%
23% 18% 16% 14% 9%
14%
2%
5% 3%
7% 5% 4%
Autumn 11
Spring 12
Autumn 12
17%
17%
13% 10% 8% 6% 4%
12% 10% 8% 7% 4% 2%
Spring 13
P Punctuality/reliability li / li bili
Cl Cleanliness li inside i id train i
Comfort of seating area
Overall station environment
Length of time journey was scheduled to take
Ease of being able to get on and off train
Info provision on train times/platforms
Others
Autumn 13
LENGTH OF DELAY – NORTHERN BUILDING BLOCKS (Mean length in minutes) 55
46
44 39 31
15 10
Tyne Tees & Wear Delay = 23% extra for journey
10
10
Manchester & Liverpool
Lancashire & Cumbria
Delay = 32% extra for journey
Delay = 18% extra for journey
11
West & North Yorkshire Delay = 28% extra for journey
South & East Yorkshire Delay = 33% extra for journey
TREND IN HANDLING OF DELAYS Northern by route 70
60
67
Tyne Tees T T & Wear: NA
% S ATISFIED
50
40
47 45
44
44 41
40
53
45
46
40
34 30
53
34
28 27
25
33 26 25
26 23
Short commute average: 37% Manchester and Liverpool Liverpool, Tyne Tees and Wear Interurban average: 47% South and East Yorkshire Rural average 46% Lancashire and Cumbria, West and North Yorkshire
20
10
0 Autumn 09 / Spring 10
Autumn 10 / Spring 11
Autumn 11 / Spring 12
Lancashire and Cumbria
Manchester and Liverpool
Tyne Tees and Wear
West and North Yorkshire
Autumn 12 / Spring 13
Autumn 13
South and East Yorkshire
% SAYING NORTHERN DID WELL ON VARIOUS ASPECTS OF DELAYS – VERSUS OTHER REGIONAL TOCS
Best TOC
THE AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORT IF THE TRAIN SERVICE COULD NOT CONTINUE
Regional
19
Northern
28
43 31
THE TIME TAKEN TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM
41
69 ((Arriva Trains Wales)) 45 45
THE SPEED WITH WHICH INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED
44 THE USEFULNESS OF THE INFORMATION 42 THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION GIVEN ABOUT THE DELAY 38 THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOUT THE DELAY
(Arriva Trains Wales)
43
48
46
54
(Arriva Trains Wales)
55
(Arriva Trains Wales)
55
(Arriva Trains Wales)
54
(Arriva Trains Wales)
Building block/route data for Northern
Station attributes
TOC South & Sector
Lancashire & Cumbria
Manchester & Liverpool
East Yorkshire
TOC West & Index
Tyne Tees & Wear
North Yorkshire
Overall satisfaction with the station
74
72
80
86
79
Ticket buying facilities
81
65
88
86
80
Provision of information about train times/platforms
76
75
88
84
89
The upkeep/repair of the station buildings/platforms
68
72
80
78
76
Cleanliness
63
72
84
84
81
The facilities and services
53
44
71
71
54
The attitudes and helpfulness of the staff
70
73
78
77
77
Connections with other forms of public transport
62
68
80
72
62
Facilities for car parking
56
52
62
56
50
Overall environment
66
69
83
73
72
Your personal security whilst using the station
64
66
76
68
67
The availability of staff
63
58
63
66
59
The provision of shelter facilities
76
67
78
77
73
A il bilit off seating Availability ti
62
51
64
70
57
How request to station staff was handled
95
87
89
92
77
The choice of shops/eating/drinking facilities available
38
42
56
45
47
Blue font: aspects of journey which are particularly important to passengers
Passenger priorities for improvement • Update of previous national and regional workk tto be b published bli h d shortly h tl • Typically, top factors feature: – – – – –
Value for money Punctuality and reliability Sufficient train services (frequency) Getting g a seat Information if there is delay
2012 findings g – Opportunities pp for improvement p on Northern
I want the company to do more than just provide a service that works, but aspire to provide a great service (Sheffield – Commuter )
• Aspects of service which are passenger priorities for improvement They have a mentality of thinking that if it runs, it’s OK – rather than thinking – Rolling stock how could we run this better? – Overcrowding – Functionality of stations – Fare evasion (= higher fares for honest users and worse service) All generating a feeling of poor value for money • Other views explored included staffing and timetables (Sheffield – Leisure)
Northern Rail rolling stock seen as not p acceptable The rolling stock is dated and not well-maintained
Like an old steam train
A bit di dingy, pretty tt wellll worn, an old ld feel to it – maybe that’s their intention, maybe it adds to the atmosphere…but I doubt it…I’m not convinced myself… How about some new trains mate?!
(Sheffield - Leisure)
We only get London s rejects London’s
(Scotland - Leeds - Business)
Some of the rolling g stock is almost decrepit…its 1950s1960s rolling stock (Manchester Commuter)
It’s higher than a bus far, but its just like a bus, a bus on rails (Leeds – Leisure)
The specification of the carriage is much worse [than FTPE] (Manchester - Commuter)
(Leeds - Leisure)
They’re like the coaches you had when you went to the g baths at school,, the swimming coaches in the sixties (Middlesbrough - Commuter)
They are like nodding donkeys (Sheffield – Commuter ) Satisfaction with ‘upkeep upkeep and repair of the train is lowest of all 19 franchised TOCs (NPS Spring 2012)
54%
This does matter to passengers and adversely affects their journey experience: i o Uncomfortable o Sometimes considered dangerous o Indicates lack of pride pride, professionalism and credibility as a business o And lack of respect for passengers If you you’re re travelling for an hour and a half on the train train, you want to be comfortable. You wouldn’t travel for an hour and a half on a Northern train…not by choice anyway (Manchester - Leisure)
During the summer months it’s like a sauna – it’s a good weight loss programme! p g
The seats are a bit shabby…the one I was on the other week was quite loose and I almost slipped off it
(Leeds - Commuter)
One of the seats was a health yp problem, yyou couldn’t and safety sit on it, it was skew-wiff (Leeds - Leisure)
(Manchester - Leisure)
Overcrowding - a problem across the network Objection in principle to standing
Safety is compromised Don’t wait for something to happen, God forbid, like a fire on the train and people can’t get off (Manchester - Leisure)
People start arguing arguing…and and people faint…its just too hot…you can always tell who’s pregnant when they drop
You shouldn't have passengers standing on a train…why t i h should h ld you pay the same amount to stand
The other galling thing is that it’s more expensive to travel at busy times, when they are ram jam full (Manchester Airport - Leisure)
(Manchester Airport - Leisure)
((Manchester - Commuter))
Lack of comfort
It’s ‘down-time’, you can’t get your laptop out if you haven’t got a lap
Inability to work
It’s horrible. There’s not enough space, especially when people are trying to push to get out the doors (Manchester Airport – Leisure)
(Manchester/Leeds-Glasgow – Business)
NPS information confirmed the issue Satisfaction with room to sit/stand,, NPS Spring p g 2012
Overcrowding seems illogical to passengers I just don’t get it. The same train has been overcrowded for so long and yet the train companies do nothing about it. Its not suddenly going to stop being packed so why don’t they do something? (Sheffield - Commuter)
They just don't seem to grasp that a lot of commuters use their trains. They always seem surprised that its busy but its been like that forever (Lancaster - Commuter, FTPE)
66%
63%
The solution for most passengers would be more carriages (rather than increased frequency) They actually added an extra carriage onto the 08:27 from Wombwell due to over-crowding and it’s made a difference. Its good when you feel they have listened .. (Sheffield - Commuter, Northern)
Fare evasion perceived as a big problem This mainly arose as an issue related to Northern (but does also affect FTPE passengers) o
‘Honest’ passengers feel a sense of injustice, and that it may be increasing their fares It infuriates me…a lot of people, you know they haven't paid…and they don’t intend to pay…they’re pay…they re just getting a free journey (Manchester –Business)
o
Fare evasion means there is less investment for newer trains tickets get people to pay and invest this back into the trains They should damn well check tickets, because they really need it (Lancaster – Commuter)
Fare evasion isn’t necessarily deliberate: o
At stations: Unstaffed stations and lack of gates make fare evasion easy…. or normal…. or the only option! i h th ld make k up th i minds i d about b t whether h th you are allowed ll d tto b k t on th i or I wish they would their buy a ti ticket the ttrain not so you don’t get the rude lecture (Lancaster – Commuter)
Ticket gates would also provide a clear barrier to avoid ambiguity for all Why are they so lazy about collecting fares from people? (Lancaster – Leisure)
They don’t bother checking tickets most of the time so there is no incentive to buy one. Everyone knows it. (Lancaster – Leisure, Northern)
o On trains: Inconsistency and not enough staff to enforce regular ticket checks
Some specific problems evident at smaller stations Access o High steps between platforms and trains and lots of steps – problematic for disabled, elderly, and parents with young children They’re not disabled friendly (M (Manchester h t – Leisure) L i )
Security I get to Thornaby station and it’s a bit…desolate….you do feel a bit vulnerable, especially if you’re on your own. Somebody was attacked there. (Middlesbrough – Commuter)
o Poor upkeep of some stations also compounds security concerns
Lack of staff at many smaller stations can exacerbate these issues – having just one member of staff could make a difference
Information o
Wayfinding is an issue – especially where platform is changed at short notice, as reported several times It could say for example, platform 6, but it doesn’t make it clear which end of platform 6,so there could be a 6a, and I’ve tried numerous times to get on a train to Lincoln [by mistake]…it would be good if there were more staff around to say actually I am on the right platform, because it does get quite confusing (Leeds – Business)
o
In relation to disruption...
If they tell you ASAP you can do g about it. You have something more options and you feel more in control (Sheffield – Commuter)
There’s no staff is there? If problem – there’s there’s a p nobody. (Manchester – Leisure)
Staff generally seen positively, but visibility and ticketing rules are bugbears Passengers have three key reasons for staff presence o Information – on trains and at stations, p y but not exclusively y during g disruption) p ) especially o Security o Enforcement of rail ‘rules’ – keeping feet off seats, respecting ‘quiet coach’, preventing fare evasion
Acknowledgement that staff authority is not always respected, but a visible staff member felt to act as a deterrent to majority of anti-social behaviour
Both qualitative and quantitative evidence suggests that:
o Visibility of staff is poor, on trains but especially at stations o Attitude Attit d off staff t ff is i generally ll reasonable, bl with some poor exceptions o Staff ability/knowledge to help often lacking Passenger perception that there is a need for better training, and better communication between and within TOCs
o Visibility of staff is usually reasonable o Attitude of staff is generally good o Staff St ff ability/knowledge bilit /k l d to t help h l often ft lacking l ki Particular issue with staff attitude when there is (frequent) confusion over: o whether tickets must be purchased at stations or on trains o which tickets are valid for which journeys Staff must be more sensitive sensitive, and rules must be clearer
In summary: in 2012, on the whole, there was perceived value for money in rail provision • •
Generally, passengers were not preoccupied with fares for these Generally services – indicating that this is not an immediate bugbear for all Some have positive opinion of value for money, especially in the j y to London/South context of other modes,, and rail journeys Satisfaction with value for money
42%
50%
Price-wise they’re not overly expensive… it’s not prohibitively expensive (Manchester Airport – Business)
I don’t mind. I get a weekly ticket which is £21. People who drive would put more than £20 of petrol in if they were doing that journey. For my b i business ttrips i tto N Newcastle, tl again, i I found this value for money.
NPS, Spring 2012
56%
(Middlesbrough – Business/Commuter)
National average g
Northern
FTPE
There are ways to improve and affirm value for money: • • • •
Certainly don’t raise fares to pay for improvements Invest in the things that matter so this is visible to passengers Avoid waste and make the system y fair for all (i.e. ( tackle fare evasion)) A more transparent and less complex pricing structure
I’m always quite perplexed by the structure of pricing (Lancaster – Business)
I never get why it can cost £8 to go 20 minutes and then 20 minutes in another direction could cost you £2 (Lancaster – Commuter)
Pay increases can be made more acceptable by being able to physically see the evidence of the increase either at the stations or on the trains. Even if they had a ‘progress poster’ telling people y had changed/invested g in what they (Sheffield – Commuter)
The train prices will go up again in January, above the rate of inflation, but you never see a difference in service and quality lit llevels. l I thi think k they th should h ld b be h held ld more accountable to this (Sheffield – Commuter)
Transparency and engagement • Many passengers feel they have little awareness of the franchise process and operator promises • BUT they do want to influence what is being purchased on their behalf AND to hold the operator to account • Need improved mechanisms and a fresh commitment to seeking views, providing information and reporting on delivery • Greater openness p and disaggregation gg g will make information relevant to passenger experience and build trust • Explore scope for dialogue and partnership working with LAs, LEPs, RUGs and wider community. Where does rail fit within the wider picture?
High level recommendations for the franchise • Unstinting focus on delivery of all elements of the ‘core offer’ Capacity C it – and d quality lit and d condition diti off ttrains i Value for money – service elements as well as price Punctuality P li and d reliability li bili Information – especially during delays and disruption • Facilitate ticket purchase and address fare evasion • Mechanisms to address passenger concerns at stations • Embed a genuinely customer-focused culture at all levels of the organisation – the ‘how’ as well as the ‘what’ • Provide P id di disaggregated t d and d ttransparentt iinformation f ti • Maintain two-way communication with passengers • Use our resources in developing your plans!
For further information:
www.passengerfocus.org.uk sharon hedges@passengerfocus org uk
[email protected] 07918 626126
