The Charter Station Access Agreement

 

This Page was Last Updated on 3 September 2010

 

Rule, Clause or Condition

Determination

Date of Hearing

Points made within Determination  (Verbatim extracts given in Italics, or between quotes)

General Point “relationship with National Station Access Conditions”

ADP50

March 2010

To note that the Charter Station Access Agreement provides that

 

“ 4.1 Except as provided in Clause 7.10, the Station Access Conditions are incorporated in and shall form part of this Agreement in relation o the Station”.

 

“7.10 Part F of the Station Access Conditions [ACCESS CHARGING] is not incorporated into this Agreement.”

[Extracts from templated Charter Station Access Agreement Access by Charter Train Operator for the provision of Non-Regular Passenger Services, 2007 between London Underground Limited and Rail Express Systems Limited in respect of Wembley Central and 12 other stations]

Function and purpose of the Charter Station Access Agreement

ADP50

March 2010

14. The Panel considered that …it had to consider the CSAA in relation to the following questions:

14.1.     What is the scope and function of the CSAA?

14.1.1.   Which are the relevant interfaces that the CSAA regulates?

14.1.2.   Who, at each of those interfaces, is the supplier, and who the customer?   And

14.1.3.   Who is the directing mind in relation to safe operation on either side of each interface? 

15.   

16.    The Panel finds that the function of the CSAA is to give the operators of Non-Regular Passenger Services access to station facilities such as will enable the passengers on such services to make safely the transition between the Charter train and “the outside world”.   In such a scenario, the physical interface between the responsibilities of the Train Operator (the customer) and the SFO (the supplier of services), and is de facto the platform edge.   Within the train the Train Operator carries the responsibility for safe operation,, and on the station that responsibility is upon the SFO.   In particular the SFO holds the accountability for the safe delivery of the “Common Station Amenities and Services”.

17.    The Panel notes that considerable emphasis is laid, by LUL upon the importance of a second interface, namely that between the area of land owned by Network Rail upon which rests Wembley Central Station, and that other area of land, also owned by Network Rail, and referred to as the St Modwen development.   The Panel acknowledges that station redevelopment works can have an impact upon the free flow of passengers to or from the station, but the management of the resulting issues cannot be other than the responsibility of the Station Facility Owner.   It is reasonable for the SFO to expect that all Train Operators would provide such information as will assist it in addressing such problems, but

17.1.     Train Operators have no role or responsibilities in the management of that external interface, and

17.2.     it is the responsibility of the SFO to mitigate any external factors, and to deliver those “Common Station Amenities and Services” to which the CSAA commits it. 

[ADP50]

 

Function and purpose of the Charter Station Access Agreement

ADP50

March 2010

22.               “The Panel notes that wording of “Schedule 3 Call-off Procedure” concedes that many of the stipulated actions or timescales are subject to tests of reasonableness.   The Panel considered that, within the CSAA, and particularly in respect of Wembley Central, such tests of reasonableness apply within the context of a presumption that the SFO has the responsibility (and the obligation) to take such measures as are necessary to enable the running of such Special Charter trains; any reason for not so doing has, therefore, to be particularly compelling.

[ADP50]

Function and purpose of the Charter Station Access Agreement

ADP50

March 2010

30.    Taking all the foregoing arguments into account, and acknowledging that the documents concerned are not always drafted unambiguously, the Panel therefore determines, in respect of the representations made by the parties, as follows;

30.1.     that the CSAA relates to the use of the Station, and exclusively to the operations within the bounds of the Station.   Where the CSAA (and related incorporated documents) state or imply that the SFO will provide stated “Common Station Services or Amenities” the Train Operator is entitled to presume that the SFO will take responsibility for supplying or procuring the supply of such services;

30.2.     to the extent that the SFO has to deal with other land-owners and authorities beyond the boundary of the Station, these are a matter for the SFO to resolve.   In managing these external relationships it is reasonable for the SFO to seek information from the Train Operator, and for the Train Operator to assist in such ways as it can.   However, the SFO may not use the issues of its relationship with other parties as a ground for delaying, or declining any Permission to Use to which the Train Operator is entitled;

30.3.     that LUL should not have required RES to provide management of the means of access to and from the Slow Line platforms at the station.

30.4.     that RES, as an operator of Non-Regular Passenger Services, and signatory to a CSAA for the use of Wembley Central Station, could reasonably act on the presumption that, where it proposed to run such a service, and when it complied essentially with the provisions of Schedule 3 Call-off Procedure, it would be granted Permission to Use the Station;

30.5.     that, LUL, the SFO at Wembley Central, in responding to RES’ approach in relation to potential VIP Charter trains in connection with the Carling Cup Final on 28th February,

30.5.1.   should have been under no doubt as to the fact that time was of the essence in dealing with all issues raised, and that,

30.5.2.   by virtue of the speed of its response, and the stance adopted at the meeting of 29th January, had “constructively” refused  RES the Permission to Use to which it was reasonably entitled, and

30.5.3.   by so doing given RES grounds for making the differences between it and the SFO a legitimate matter to be considered by this Panel.

that whilst the provisions of Schedule 3 Call-off Procedure contain latitudes, and discretions in relation to information to be provided and timescales to be adhered to, the SFO has a responsibility to ensure that all necessary actions and decisions are taken expeditiously with the common objective  that the traffic on offer is to be won, operated safely, and not turned away.

[ADP50]