Copied below is a full copy of the letter sent in response to plans issued by First Great Western for the future of local and national rail services:
I’m responding to your consultation about the Great Western Franchise. To begin with, there are many parts of the draft franchise document which local residents in Weston and the surrounding villages would support and agree with, in particular:
• More train capacity and frequency. Giving local people greener, more comfortable and reliable alternatives to using their cars – particularly Bristol commuters who currently suffer in rush-hour jams around J21 of the M5 – is essential.
• Better integration of train and track. Experience from elsewhere in the UK is that Network Rail will not readily find extra capacity for operators to run more services, or improve the reliability and resilience of existing services, unless integration is improved.
• Stronger focus on customers’ needs and satisfaction, with financial incentives for franchisees to meet satisfaction targets.
• Timetables with seasonal variations to meet high demand in the summer. This is – rather obviously – tremendously important for a tourism centre like Weston, with large numbers of seasonal visitors.
I am also writing to seek reassurance about a specific proposal in the draft Franchise, which envisages breaking up the existing services into two or more smaller franchisees once the current arrangements expire. I’ve long argued in favour of more competition on our railways, through ‘open access’ services and more numerous, smaller franchises, because it creates continuous pressure for train operators to increase consumer choice and drive up standards, rather than a one-off push every decade or so when they are bidding for new franchise contracts. As an example, if local residents had been able to switch to services run by different operators than First Great Weston at several points when they were delivering poor value and quality services during the current franchise, many would have jumped at the chance.
So I would strongly support moves towards more ‘on-rail’ competition. But I am writing to ask you to confirm that this will not mean the end of direct services to and from London and the Thames Valley as a result. The map on page 26 of the consultation document might indicate through-services would end, or that they would continue alongside other local services. Could you please confirm that the plans envisage the second of these two choices; that existing number and timings of these intercity services will be either maintained or increased in future, rather than cut? The reasons are twofold:
• the intercity trains are vital for extra rush-hour capacity, and provide a more reliable and far less crowded service for Bristol commuters. Removing them would require much more frequent and longer train sets to provide local commuter services to cope with growing demand. It would also be an environmental step backwards in efforts to give commuters a greener alternative to using their cars.
• Weston is a growing business hub, with business travellers increasingly needing to reach destinations in the Thames Valley and London. Having to change at Bristol makes the journey slower, more brittle because of the risk of missed connections, and less accessible for people with heavy luggage or mobility problems.
For that reason, these plans must include a cast-iron guarantee that direct services between Weston and London will be maintained or increased. Please will you confirm this to me, and to the other MPs with constituencies on the Bristol to Taunton line, promptly.
Yours sincerely,
John Penrose
MP for Weston-super-Mare
C.c.: Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP, Secretary of State for Transport, Rt Hon Liam Fox MP, James Heappey MP, Ian Liddell-Grainger MP, Rebecca Pow MP.