Not sure if anyone saw or heard this statement made by Jim Dowd in the House of Commons on 18th Dec:
"I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise a couple of matters of particular concern to my constituents, although they have wider implications across south London. If I have time, I will refer to a third matter.
Earlier this year, I secured an Adjournment debate on the future of Network Rail services into London Bridge station following the welcome and long overdue extension of the East London line through my constituency to Crystal Palace and West Croydon. I do not intend to reprise the whole of that debate now, but I will make one point that I made then. The London borough of Lewisham has the highest proportion of residents who work outside the borough of any of the London boroughs. Therefore, the public transport links into and out of Lewisham are crucial to my constituents and others.
I sought in that debate to get an assurance that current Network Rail services would be augmented by East London line services and that there would be no cut in the current level of service, which is already extremely overcrowded. Although everyone welcomes the extension of the East London line and the extended opportunities that that will give for changes in travel patterns, on many occasions people cannot even get on the trains that go through the stations in my constituency. The frequency does not matter if by the time they get to Honor Oak, for example, they cannot get on the train. I sought a number of assurances, which the Minister was not able to give in full. However, the Minister certainly made some welcome comments.
Since then, the route utilisation study for south London has been concluded. Such studies are taking place throughout the country. I am sure that they are taking place in the constituencies of many Members present. The route utilisation study for south London has been published for consultation. The outline draft is before us. It is necessarily a weighty document: it is well over 200 pages, it is very technical and has numerous charts, graphs and tables. It will form the background not just for the extended East London line in 2010 but for the franchise renewal, which comes up in 2009.
The franchise is currently held by Southern. I do not know whether it will be successful again. I do not even know whether it will tender. I suspect that it will, which will be good news for people in my constituency, because it took over from the late, lamented Connex, which had the franchise taken away from it. Services have improved markedly. As I say, there is huge pressure in my constituency on the rail services going south on the loop line into London Bridge and Victoria stations.
The route utilisation study is not readily comprehensible to those who do not understand how railway timetabling is done. During the Adjournment debate earlier this year, I mentioned a few community groups in my constituency. I pay tribute to them again for the work that they have done in trying to interpret the implications of the options outlined in the study. However, I have concluded that the reasoning in that was at variance with my own and certainly at variance with the various undertakings and assurances that I was given by Network Rail, Southern, Transport for London and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), who is responsible for rail, and his officials. There seems to be concern in the constituency that services into London Bridge station will be reduced from eight trains to six during the rush hour and that loop services between London Bridge and Clapham Junction into Victoria will be abolished.
I was therefore delighted to receive an e-mail from Network Rail. I will read part of it because I would like to get it on the record to reassure my constituents. It says:
"Network Rail has some concerns about a number of factually incorrect comments about the South London RUS which are currently in circulation and which may be causing...unnecessary worry.
Some of the issues which concern us, and which we would like to clarify are as follows:
It is not true to state that 'the draft RUS would result in a 25 per cent. cut in existing Sydenham Line peak period services to London Bridge. The draft RUS proposals for December 2009 would in fact:
Result in exactly the same number of trains as today from Sydenham/Forest Hill arriving at London Bridge between 0700 and 1000 on weekdays"
and
"Result in an increase from today in the number of trains from Anerley, Penge West, Honor Oak Park and Brockley arriving at London Bridge between 0700 and 1000 on Weekdays".
It goes on:
"It is not true to state that the draft RUS proposes an even greater cut in off-peak services from Sydenham to London Bridge. The draft RUS makes no comment whatever on the level of off-peak services to London Bridge. It is also not true to state that the draft RUS proposals will result in the loss of the loop line service to Clapham junction and Victoria."
I was very heartened to receive that from Network Rail and obviously my constituents will be pleased as well. However, the proof of the pudding will be when the East London line arrives in 2010.
The utilisation study is out for consultation and should be finalised by March. It then goes to the Office of Rail Regulation and finally to the Department for Transport. I hope that all the bodies involved will process it in exactly the way that Network Rail intends and that the East London line in 2010 will be a genuine and very welcome addition—particularly to someone who has been campaigning for the extension of the East London line for 35 years—to the area and to the people of my constituency...."
Interesting......
The rest of the speech can be found at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/? ... 176#g766.0
Jim Dowd Statement on rail services
-
richpickings
- Posts: 75
- Joined: 15 Oct 2006 17:05
- Location: Ex of Kirkdale
Jim Dowd refers to an email from Network Rail in response to a series of emails, from Forest Hill Society and Sydenham Society members as well as other members of the public, which I shall reproduce below. This letter was sent to me by Network Rail (copying in Mr Dowd) and is reproduced in full below.
I shall include my response on behalf of the two Societies sent by email in my next posting:
Dear Mr Abrahams,
Network Rail has some concerns about a number of factually incorrect comments about the South London RUS which are currently in circulation and which may be causing your members unnecessary worry.
Some of the issues which concern us, and which we would like to clarify are as follows:
1. It is not true to state that “the draft RUS would result in a 25% cut in existing Sydenham Line peak period services” to London Bridge. The draft RUS proposals for December 2009 would in fact:
· Result in exactly the same number of trains as today from Sydenham/Forest Hill arriving at London Bridge between 0700 and 1000 on weekdays
· Result in an increase from today in the number of trains from Anerley, Penge West, Honor Oak Park and Brockley arriving at London Bridge between 0700 and 1000 on weekdays
2. It is not true to state that the draft RUS proposes an even greater cut in off-peak services from Sydenham to London Bridge.
· The draft RUS makes no comment whatsoever on the level of off-peak services to London Bridge
3. It is not true to state that the draft RUS proposes the “loss of the loop-line service to Clapham Junction and Victoria”.
· The draft RUS makes no comment whatsoever about this service
· In the morning peak, as of today, there are no direct services running from Forest Hill/Sydenham to Victoria via Crystal Palace until 0908. Indeed, the first direct train to Crystal Palace itself is not until 0830. In 2010, across the entire morning peak period 0700-1000, there will be an East London Line train every 15 minutes from Forest Hill to Crystal Palace, where passengers will be able to change onto four trains each hour going from there to Victoria.
I shall include my response on behalf of the two Societies sent by email in my next posting:
Dear Mr Abrahams,
Network Rail has some concerns about a number of factually incorrect comments about the South London RUS which are currently in circulation and which may be causing your members unnecessary worry.
Some of the issues which concern us, and which we would like to clarify are as follows:
1. It is not true to state that “the draft RUS would result in a 25% cut in existing Sydenham Line peak period services” to London Bridge. The draft RUS proposals for December 2009 would in fact:
· Result in exactly the same number of trains as today from Sydenham/Forest Hill arriving at London Bridge between 0700 and 1000 on weekdays
· Result in an increase from today in the number of trains from Anerley, Penge West, Honor Oak Park and Brockley arriving at London Bridge between 0700 and 1000 on weekdays
2. It is not true to state that the draft RUS proposes an even greater cut in off-peak services from Sydenham to London Bridge.
· The draft RUS makes no comment whatsoever on the level of off-peak services to London Bridge
3. It is not true to state that the draft RUS proposes the “loss of the loop-line service to Clapham Junction and Victoria”.
· The draft RUS makes no comment whatsoever about this service
· In the morning peak, as of today, there are no direct services running from Forest Hill/Sydenham to Victoria via Crystal Palace until 0908. Indeed, the first direct train to Crystal Palace itself is not until 0830. In 2010, across the entire morning peak period 0700-1000, there will be an East London Line train every 15 minutes from Forest Hill to Crystal Palace, where passengers will be able to change onto four trains each hour going from there to Victoria.
Response from the Forest Hill Society and Sydenham Society to the above email:
Dear Mr Stephenson,
Thank you for your e-mail of 13 December. I am replying on behalf of the Forest Hill Society and the Sydenham Society.
You refer to factually incorrect comments that are currently circulating about the South London RUS – with the implication that they emanate from ourselves - and you ask that we pass on to our members the clarification contained in your e-mail. We disagree that we have made incorrect comments.
We respond to your various points below, but we should first say that an absence of comment in the draft RUS on a particular matter does not mean that no changes are planned and does not prevent us from drawing conclusions about Network Rail’s intentions based on previous document produced by Network Rail.
Sydenham/Forest Hill services running into London Bridge – am peak (7.00-10.00)
You say that the draft RUS proposes no change in the am peak service. However, page 112 of the draft RUS – Assessment of Option 2.3 – refers to a reduction of 2 trains per hour (tph) in the London Bridge service. The subsequent discussion of Option 2.3 does not suggest removal of that proposal.
Page 203 of the RUS shows 6 tph into London Bridge (compared with the present 8 tph shown on page 202).
The Network Rail feasibility study (published on Network Rail’s website) shows a current Sydenham/Forest Hill service of 20 trains over the am peak, and a planned service of 16.
If we have misunderstood matters then so too have the London Borough of Lewisham who in their comments on the draft RUS have, we understand, referred to a proposed reduction of services into London Bridge.
Sydenham/Forest Hill services running into London Bridge – off peak (10.00 17.00)
You say that the draft RUS offers no comment on these services. At the same time you do not say what is the proposed off-peak services once the East London Line is operational.
The Network Rail feasibility study referred to above shows a current service of 43 trains over the off peak period and a much reduced planned service of 28 trains. Off peak specification may be a matter primarily for the franchising authority but the feasibility study is Network Rail’s. Unless you can now assure us otherwise, we must continue to assume that Network Rail intend (or would not object to) a cut of the order identified in the feasibility study.
Sydenham/Forest Hill services running into London Bridge – pm peak (17.00 – 20.00)
You do not comment on these services. Nevertheless, the feasibility study shows a current service level of 18 trains over the peak period and a much reduced planned service of 12 trains.
London Bridge to Forest Hill/Sydenham services – 5.00-24.00
You do not comment on these services. However, the Network Rail feasibility study shows a current daily service of 96 trains and a planned daily service, again reduced, of 77 trains. Hence the concerns that we have expressed.
Loop line to Clapham Junction and Victoria via Forest Hill and Sydenham
We agree with you that the RUS says nothing about this line. We consider it significant that the RUS does not actively propose retention of the line in its present form whilst it does talk about other off-peak services on the same line, particularly the off-peak service to Charing Cross discussed on page 176 of the RUS, which it concludes should not continue past 2009.
Although we note your comment about Sydenham Line passengers (from 2010 onwards) being able to pick up Victoria bound services by changing at Crystal Palace, we do not regard that as a wholly adequate substitute for the current off-peak direct service. Your reference to the Crystal Palace connection simply confirms our view that Network Rail’s intention is to remove the direct service.
Conclusion
Our principal concern is with what we see as proposed reductions in the existing level of services, particularly peak as well as off peak, to and from London Bridge, for Sydenham/Forest Hill passengers. If you are able to provide us with an unequivocal assurance, in writing, that there are no proposals to reduce the existing service levels, and that they will in fact continue after 2010, then we will be most pleased to convey this news to our members.
Likewise, if you can provide a similarly firm assurance that there is no intention to withdraw the existing direct service to Victoria from 2010 onwards then we will happily pass that on.
Many thanks for giving me the opportunity to put these concerns directly to you via email. We would of course be very happy to meet with you, early in the New Year, to try and reconcile our different understandings. That may be a far better way forward than by correspondence.
May I also take this opportunity to thank Jim Dowd for once again raising this issue in parliament and referring to some of the specific points you made in your email. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id...-18a.766.0
Dear Mr Stephenson,
Thank you for your e-mail of 13 December. I am replying on behalf of the Forest Hill Society and the Sydenham Society.
You refer to factually incorrect comments that are currently circulating about the South London RUS – with the implication that they emanate from ourselves - and you ask that we pass on to our members the clarification contained in your e-mail. We disagree that we have made incorrect comments.
We respond to your various points below, but we should first say that an absence of comment in the draft RUS on a particular matter does not mean that no changes are planned and does not prevent us from drawing conclusions about Network Rail’s intentions based on previous document produced by Network Rail.
Sydenham/Forest Hill services running into London Bridge – am peak (7.00-10.00)
You say that the draft RUS proposes no change in the am peak service. However, page 112 of the draft RUS – Assessment of Option 2.3 – refers to a reduction of 2 trains per hour (tph) in the London Bridge service. The subsequent discussion of Option 2.3 does not suggest removal of that proposal.
Page 203 of the RUS shows 6 tph into London Bridge (compared with the present 8 tph shown on page 202).
The Network Rail feasibility study (published on Network Rail’s website) shows a current Sydenham/Forest Hill service of 20 trains over the am peak, and a planned service of 16.
If we have misunderstood matters then so too have the London Borough of Lewisham who in their comments on the draft RUS have, we understand, referred to a proposed reduction of services into London Bridge.
Sydenham/Forest Hill services running into London Bridge – off peak (10.00 17.00)
You say that the draft RUS offers no comment on these services. At the same time you do not say what is the proposed off-peak services once the East London Line is operational.
The Network Rail feasibility study referred to above shows a current service of 43 trains over the off peak period and a much reduced planned service of 28 trains. Off peak specification may be a matter primarily for the franchising authority but the feasibility study is Network Rail’s. Unless you can now assure us otherwise, we must continue to assume that Network Rail intend (or would not object to) a cut of the order identified in the feasibility study.
Sydenham/Forest Hill services running into London Bridge – pm peak (17.00 – 20.00)
You do not comment on these services. Nevertheless, the feasibility study shows a current service level of 18 trains over the peak period and a much reduced planned service of 12 trains.
London Bridge to Forest Hill/Sydenham services – 5.00-24.00
You do not comment on these services. However, the Network Rail feasibility study shows a current daily service of 96 trains and a planned daily service, again reduced, of 77 trains. Hence the concerns that we have expressed.
Loop line to Clapham Junction and Victoria via Forest Hill and Sydenham
We agree with you that the RUS says nothing about this line. We consider it significant that the RUS does not actively propose retention of the line in its present form whilst it does talk about other off-peak services on the same line, particularly the off-peak service to Charing Cross discussed on page 176 of the RUS, which it concludes should not continue past 2009.
Although we note your comment about Sydenham Line passengers (from 2010 onwards) being able to pick up Victoria bound services by changing at Crystal Palace, we do not regard that as a wholly adequate substitute for the current off-peak direct service. Your reference to the Crystal Palace connection simply confirms our view that Network Rail’s intention is to remove the direct service.
Conclusion
Our principal concern is with what we see as proposed reductions in the existing level of services, particularly peak as well as off peak, to and from London Bridge, for Sydenham/Forest Hill passengers. If you are able to provide us with an unequivocal assurance, in writing, that there are no proposals to reduce the existing service levels, and that they will in fact continue after 2010, then we will be most pleased to convey this news to our members.
Likewise, if you can provide a similarly firm assurance that there is no intention to withdraw the existing direct service to Victoria from 2010 onwards then we will happily pass that on.
Many thanks for giving me the opportunity to put these concerns directly to you via email. We would of course be very happy to meet with you, early in the New Year, to try and reconcile our different understandings. That may be a far better way forward than by correspondence.
May I also take this opportunity to thank Jim Dowd for once again raising this issue in parliament and referring to some of the specific points you made in your email. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id...-18a.766.0
east london line
I'm sorry Michael but your responses are really, really long. Would it be possible to summarise the point you are making?
Summary:
All the evidence suggests that there will be cuts to the existing services to London Bridge.
Although the RUS does not talk about off-peak services to London Bridge or Victoria previous documents do talk about cuts to these services.
We continue to oppose any cuts to the services from Sydenham and Forest Hill to London Bridge, Charing Cross, and Victoria.
All the evidence suggests that there will be cuts to the existing services to London Bridge.
Although the RUS does not talk about off-peak services to London Bridge or Victoria previous documents do talk about cuts to these services.
We continue to oppose any cuts to the services from Sydenham and Forest Hill to London Bridge, Charing Cross, and Victoria.
Many thanks to Michael for providing both a detailed analysis of the proposed cuts and a summary.
As Michael has said, there is clear and overwhelming evidence that we are facing cuts to services post 2010.
Take trains from Sydenham and FH - the existing timetable shows there are currently 102 trains from Sydenham to London Bridge; the proposed timetable (provided by Network Rail!) shows 72 trains - a cut of 25%. The same is true of trains coming back from London Bridge to Sydenham - and Network Rail propose to end all through trains to Charing Cross.
In our face-to-face meetings to date with Network Rail they have never attempted to deny these cuts. It is now surprising that they (or their PR department) issue statements which appear to contradict the facts.
We have asked Network to clarify their position. Let's see what comes back.
As Michael has said, there is clear and overwhelming evidence that we are facing cuts to services post 2010.
Take trains from Sydenham and FH - the existing timetable shows there are currently 102 trains from Sydenham to London Bridge; the proposed timetable (provided by Network Rail!) shows 72 trains - a cut of 25%. The same is true of trains coming back from London Bridge to Sydenham - and Network Rail propose to end all through trains to Charing Cross.
In our face-to-face meetings to date with Network Rail they have never attempted to deny these cuts. It is now surprising that they (or their PR department) issue statements which appear to contradict the facts.
We have asked Network to clarify their position. Let's see what comes back.
I have asked the webmaster to put the proposed timetable onto the site. You can then all judge whether cuts are happening or not.
I think anyone looking at these timetables who claims cuts aren't in the offing has quite a bit of explaining to do.
In the meantime it is well worth visiting the on-line petition below and looking at what people are saying about these cuts. Go to "signatures" and then "hover" over "view"
http://www.gopetition.com/online/10372.html
I think anyone looking at these timetables who claims cuts aren't in the offing has quite a bit of explaining to do.
In the meantime it is well worth visiting the on-line petition below and looking at what people are saying about these cuts. Go to "signatures" and then "hover" over "view"
http://www.gopetition.com/online/10372.html
-
Muddy Waters
- Posts: 137
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 17:05
Well incase anbody was unclear about the route
http://www.alex4d.com/map2012.gif
http://www.alex4d.com/map/oground.gif
http://www.alex4d.com/map2012.gif
http://www.alex4d.com/map/oground.gif
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
I'm not sure how official that map is, Nicholas. At the bottom it says "Design alterations © Alex Gollner", and it is posted on his own website.
There is, however, an official map on the <TfL website>, and we're on it.
This is an extract:
There is, however, an official map on the <TfL website>, and we're on it.
This is an extract:
Thats just the bus isnt it i found the offical plans on TFL
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/resources/corpora ... ground.jpg
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/resources/corpora ... p-2010.jpg
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/resources/corpora ... ground.jpg
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/resources/corpora ... p-2010.jpg
All it needs in my opinion is a connection near Shoredictch High Street to the Central Lne. Its a pity that it does not go into Zone 1. It looks like there will be double the amount of trains to croydon and four times the amount of trains Crystal Palace. It's a shame that it will only terminate in the north at Highbury & Islington when it could easyily continue giving use a direct service to Camden, Hamstead Heath and Kew Garderns.
Also I believe that we should not be campaigning to save the line to Victoria but campaigning for the Thameslink to stop at Sydenham giving us a direct link to Brighton, Gatwick, St Pancras and Luton Airport.
Also I believe that we should not be campaigning to save the line to Victoria but campaigning for the Thameslink to stop at Sydenham giving us a direct link to Brighton, Gatwick, St Pancras and Luton Airport.
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
Nicholas - I'm sure you'll think I'm being patronising and unfair but can I ask you to at least check some of your facts and ideas thoroughly before posting "facts" about coming rail services.
In 2010, the ELL will NOT terminate at Highbury and Islington but at Dalston Junction. Although there is a plan to extend the line north to H&I "in 2011" it is not yet financed - and given the history of delay in rail projects it would be wrong to assume there is going to be a link north to H&I.
Calling for trains on the Thameslink to stop at Sydenham is entirely unrealistic. Apart from the dangers inherent in shifting trains from the inner to the outer tracks there simply isn't enough capacity on the line to achieve this. When the ELL line arrives there will often be 14 trains per hour on the tracks (15 trains per hour is the maximum according to the RUS that this line can take without a new set of signals - costing at least £1billion).
Be careful when you make the statement "there will be double the amount of trains to Croydon". There may be extra trains to WEST Croydon but it is by no means certain that there will be any extra trains to EAST Croydon. (Sorry to be pedantic but East Croydon is by far the better link for local travellers, especially those wishing to continue south).
I'm unclear as to why you think that "it's a pity that it [the ELL] does not go into Zone 1". The ELL was never meant, and isn't, a direct link to central London. It is intended as a link to the east End and the northern City. For those travellers, it is a huge ADVANTAGE that it doesn't go into Zone 1 thus allowing them to Canary Wharf and the north of the city to pay £1.20 less per day for their daily commute.
In 2010, the ELL will NOT terminate at Highbury and Islington but at Dalston Junction. Although there is a plan to extend the line north to H&I "in 2011" it is not yet financed - and given the history of delay in rail projects it would be wrong to assume there is going to be a link north to H&I.
Calling for trains on the Thameslink to stop at Sydenham is entirely unrealistic. Apart from the dangers inherent in shifting trains from the inner to the outer tracks there simply isn't enough capacity on the line to achieve this. When the ELL line arrives there will often be 14 trains per hour on the tracks (15 trains per hour is the maximum according to the RUS that this line can take without a new set of signals - costing at least £1billion).
Be careful when you make the statement "there will be double the amount of trains to Croydon". There may be extra trains to WEST Croydon but it is by no means certain that there will be any extra trains to EAST Croydon. (Sorry to be pedantic but East Croydon is by far the better link for local travellers, especially those wishing to continue south).
I'm unclear as to why you think that "it's a pity that it [the ELL] does not go into Zone 1". The ELL was never meant, and isn't, a direct link to central London. It is intended as a link to the east End and the northern City. For those travellers, it is a huge ADVANTAGE that it doesn't go into Zone 1 thus allowing them to Canary Wharf and the north of the city to pay £1.20 less per day for their daily commute.
Jim Dowd's statement
I don't know how people in Honor Oak and Brockley will possibly hope to get on the train if the service is cut. They often can't get on at all in rush hour as it is. Which indicates that we in Sydenham and Forest Hill maybe faced with the same fate!