Friends of the Derwent Valley Line

FRIENDS OF DERWENT VALLEY LINE (FDVL)

Minutes of Open Meeting Held at the Brunswick Inn Derby on Wednesday 10th February 2010

Present:

David Rayner (DR) ChairmanKelly Betchley (Passenger Focus) (KB)

Christopher Charlton (CC)Chris Darrall (CD)Alan Butler (AB)

Ernie Marchant (EM)Rod Wildsmith (RW)Pat Rigby (PR)

John Jarman (JJ)Freda Raphael (FR)Alex Cester (AC)

Alastair Morley (AM) DVLCRP

1)Apologies – Ian Ambrose, Geoff Errington, Bob Pennyfather

2)Minutes of Last Open Meeting (08/12/09) – accepted

3)Matters arising

FDVL had submitted a late response to EMT on the proposed May Timetable setting out our thoughts for service improvements. AM had submitted a response from the CRP.

4)Presentation by Kelly Betchley from Passenger Focus

KB explained that Passenger Focus (PF) was the independent national consumer watchdog for Britain’s railway passengers, and for England’s bus & coach passengers. It was funded by the Department for Transport (DfT) but was independent of them. It had a strong emphasis on evidence based campaigning and research so that it knew what was “happening on the ground” from gathered facts. Its organisation included

• a Passenger Advice Team which was an appeals forum for passengers who were dissatisfied with treatment received from Train Operating Companies (TOCs)
• a Passenger Link Team which worked with TOCs/local groups/individuals to develop plans for improvements to services & facilities.

PF had no legal sanction over TOCs, but has done work on behalf of DfT to enable Franchise specifications to reflect local requirements/demand.

PF (Rail) was organised along TOC lines. (KB was responsible for EMT & East Coast.) whereas PF(Bus&Coach) was organised on a regional basis.

KB had previously worked in Customer Services for an airline and also for MML/EMT (8yrs)

During discussion on the role of PF and it’s visibility to the passenger, KB acknowledged that there was probably a “brand awareness” issue which PF needed to address, so that it could meet its vision & mission statements of “putting passengers first” and “getting the best deal for passengers”.

KB made available copies of PF’s “2009 National Passenger Survey” document, & “Fares & Ticketing Study” and said that they had a 33-35% response to their questionnaire, which was excellent for a postal return.

5)Questions on Penalty Fare Schemes & Consultation Process

DR explained FDVL’s concern that there had been no local consultation on the EMT Penalty fares Scheme. FDVL fully supported revenue protection measures but could not understand why Belper & Duffield had been included in the scheme. Similarly the DfT’s recent consultation exercise on changes to Penalty Fare Scheme, including the increase of the penalty to £50 had passed without anyone locally being aware of its existence.

KB explained that EMT had to submit their Penalty Fare Scheme 3 months prior to implementation to DfT together with any PTE’s involved (South Yorks) for approval . This would have been probably about August 2009. They also had to let PF review the scheme.

Crucially she explained that PF do not see themselves as the conduit for consultation with other Local Authorities or passenger groups. It is the responsibility of the TOC wishing to implement the scheme to have such discussions.

Whilst this explained why PF had not raised the matter with Local Authorities or passenger groups such as FDVL, a number of members were surprised at this stance, given PF’s stated aims of “putting passengers first” & “getting the best deal..”

KB agreed to speak to the DfT team who were handling the Penalty Fare Scheme revision to see if they could still take responses , given the cut-off date has passed Action KB

Discussion then turned to a number of specific issues

• was the Penalty Fare scheme was appropriate to the Derwent Valley Line ?
• was the arrangement at Belper reasonable ? (where the TVM was located on one platform and not readily accessible for passengers travelling north)
• why were EMT so slow to place notices on the TVM’s to explain that Gold Card/B-Line Card holders could validly purchase tickets on the train.

KB noted the comments from FDVL members that EMT’s Public Relations/ Customer Service organisation seemed unable to understand the negative publicity, and loss of income/passengers that the latter issue was creating - despite much positive input from AM (as DVL CRP Officer).

Other questions raised (together with KB’s responses) were:-

“Should Revenue Protection Staff be in uniform when enforcing the Penalty Fare scheme ?” There were occasions when RP Staff would be in plain clothes, but should still show proof of identity. There had been no reports of RP staff working between Belper & Derby, but several instances between Derby & Nottingham – reflecting EMT’s statement that targeted action would be focused to those routes where regular fare avoidance was suspected.

“How long was it reasonable to queue for a ticket at a TVM?” -. At stations with Ticket Offices the norm was 3mins Off Peak, 5mins Peak .She understood that EMT are reviewing the capabilities of all TVM’s (Post-meeting note: KB advised that EMT guidelines are the same as for Ticket Offices and that where queues exceed targets, a Penalty Fare scheme is normally temporarily suspended. EMT are planning to install a PERTIS machine at Belper in May/June)

“Can stations have both TVM & PERTIS machines?” -There was nothing to prevent this.

“Can PF encourage user friendly ticketing initiatives e.g. carnets”? - PF have done some value-for money research and are working with EMT ( who have a carnet type scheme on the mainline and a pilot on the Robin Hood Line (ex Central Trains). AM said he had tried to get a scheme for Belper. KB said that carnets cannot be issued by TVM’s, and that any retail outlet wishing to sell tickets needed to obtain ATOC “accredited retailer” status.

“Can PF help FDVL in putting together a case for additional mainline stops at Belper?” - KB said that PF had done some research on identifying latent demand, and on how far people would drive to stations to catch trains (1-5miles). She was not aware of any analysis which related this with overall journey times. Following further discussion she agreed to look into anything PF had which could assist. Action KB

In conclusion KB thanked FDVL for some of the detailed points raised & said she would welcome being kept informed of issues and aspirations we had with EMT, in case she could assist.

DR thanked her for her time and responses to questions raised.

6)Next Open Meetings 2010 – 13th April, 8th June 1720 hours, Brunswick Inn, Derby

Page 1 of 2