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