Thanks, Nasaroc. But I must say that, to the extent that I understand Southern's paragraph 20.4, it doesn't sound to me like 'arguing strongly' in favour of retaining our CX service. They say that they'd support it 'all else being equal', but then seem to concede that their rivals (I assume) for CX slots, Southeastern, have 'real concerns' about their own capacity. They go on to make wistful suggestions about what might happen 'if there was a case [!] for Southern taking priority over Southeastern.' All a bit feeble, isn't it?

Do you know whether there is an reasoned explanation anywhere of why in the event Network Rail decided against us?

I'll happily write to them all, but...

Does anyone know if there's a best approach for lobbying / campaigning against the loss of our direct Charing Cross services (most critically, in my opinion, southbound late evening services - if that could be a possible compromise)?

Should we write independently to the people se23northener mentions or is there a better way of galvanising the pressure? If writing, are there specific points to raise which would be likely to demand more attention from the addressee?

Are there case studies of successful campaigning in similar situations?

Or is it completely pointless to waste the effort even trying?

I'm still working on it, Foresters!

I had a letter from Southern very similar to Michael's one, which also contained a link to the full Southern Response to the RUS that nasaroc posted. Therefore I assume there is no point pushing Southern any further. They seem to be saying that they are not the decision-making party but that Network Rail is.

London Travel Watch wrote to say that they can only take up cases where there is dissatisfaction with a response from Southern. So I have written to London Travel Watch again to say that I am definitely dissatisfied and to ask for their help in finding out who to lobby now, whether at Network Rail or elsewhere. I'll post again when I get a reply; they were fast to respond last time.

Also had a reponse from Joan Ruddock, who has had other letters from her constituents already and is currently awaiting a response from Southern.

So, some progress, but still no clear answer on the best way to lobby to get this decision reversed with a minimum of effort!

My current thinking, if anyone still feels strongly about this loss of services and is willing to take a few minutes to write some letters, is to write these letters in this order:
1. Write to your MP saying you want to make your voice heard on this issue and ask for them to lobby on your behalf.
2. Write to Southern, sit back and wait for their standard response.
3. Then write to London Travel Watch, enclosing a copy of the Southern letter, and ask them to take up the matter because Southern's response was not satisfactory.

Also go to the Sydenham Society FUTURE RAIL SERVICES meeting at 7.30pm at the Naborhood Centre, Sydenham Road on September 17.

It really does help to write lots of letters! It is how stuff gets done in this democracy of ours! I used to work for an MP as a caseworker and the issues that have the most letters coming in get the most attention.

Utlimately I think that our MPs and London Travel Watch may have the best chance of actually getting hold of the decision-makers behind this opaque decision and getting them to change their minds.

A couple of queries:

'Writing' - I plan to write and post letters, but is email as effective?

When exactly will these services end?

Is the ending of direct services to Charing Cross generally known about - has it been made public anywhere - or is the idea that the changes will just happen before the masses can rise up?

If the latter, there is a good case for trying to publicise this more widely. But how?

Emails are definitely as good as a letter.
jimdowd.newlabour@care4free.net
ruddockj@parliament.uk
comments@southernrailway.com
enquiries@londontravelwatch.org.uk

The services will end in the December 2009 timetable change, and this was 'announced' in the Southern Stakeholder Briefing which lives here: http://www.southernrailway.com/main.php?page_id=129

But Southern only display the latest briefing; it was the previous one that contained the announcement and this is no longer available on the website. The bad news seems to have been buried...

Re wider publication, the Sydenham Society seems to be on the case with their meeting. Does the FHS have any plans to make this more public, or call a meeting, Michael?

FH Society has TfL coming to speak at our AGM in October, after a month of running the station. However, TfL are not responsible for the termination of Southern Trains to Charing Cross.

As far as I am aware Southern and South Eastern are the same company, so it is not surprising that Southern put up little fight against their own company to keep our train services.

Syd Soc and FH Soc continue to work closely on this issue but we are currently waiting for a little more information to make sure we address all of the service issues in the right way.

Michael, thanks. There are indeed a lot of linked issues around our train services right now, and this Charing Cross service is just a small part of it...

Can I suggest that you add Len Duvall (London Assembly representative for Lewisham and Greenwich) to SE23Northerner's list:

Len Duval
GLA
City Hall
The Queen's Walk
London SE1 2AA

Telephone: 020 7983 4517
Email: len.duvall@london.gov.uk

You could also contact Network Rail directly using their online form or via post at
Network Rail
Kings Place
90 York Way
London
N1 9AG
National Helpline: 08457 11 41 41

I guess this was the reason for my hesitation in writing - I wanted to make sure I said the right things rather than just moaning.

I have sent a message to Network Rail as follows:

I understand that the decision that direct services in the evening between Forest Hill and Charing Cross should be withdrawn with effect from this coming December was taken by Network Rail. If so, can you please explain to me the reason for this significant deterioration in our services - or at least tell me where I can find such an explanation?

I have also emailed Jim Dowd, as follows:

Dear Mr Dowd

I am very concerned about the planned withdrawal from December of direct trains in the evening between Forest Hill and Charing Cross. This will make getting home from the West End after an outing to the theatre etc a lot more complicated, inconvenient and uncomfortable than it is at present. I have written to Network Rail (who I understand actually took the decision to cancel Southern's slots at Charing Cross) for an explanation. Meanwhile I hope you will do all you can to get this decision reversed.

Best wishes

Robin Orton

Other thing being equal, I will post any replies I get here.

Getting back from the West End to FH in the late evening isn't going to be more difficult just because of the proposed axing of Charing Cross services. Southern also propose cutting off peak services from 6 trains per hour to 4 trains per hour.

This means significant cuts in our late night services from LB.

There are currently 5 trains per hour from LB to FH between 9pm and 10pm. Between 10pm and 11pm there are 6 trains per hour. Cut these services to 4tph and axe services from CX and you make late night travel back from the West End that much more difficult.

Yes, the ELL will be in operation by the time these cuts arrive but the ELL isn?t going to be easy to access from the West End. Direct, no-fuss services going from one place to another without changes are what you need at that time of night.

People often talk on this forum about the hope that future improved rail services will help regenerate FH. Southern?s timetable for late evening travel from the West End is going to be quite a setback for these hopes.

One of the major questions which any young person thinking of settling in FH is going to ask is - "How easy is it to get back from the West End at night"? Thanks to Southern's proposed cuts, the answer sadly is - "Not as easy as it once was".

There are actually only 4 trains per hour between 9pm and 11pm. The extra trains that you include involve trains to Norwood Junction and then returning in the opposite direction (which takes longer than waiting for the next direct train).

I am still very annoyed about the unneccesary removal of the evening Charing Cross services and I do not see how the East London Line will benefit people returning from the West End in the evenings. People will end up changing at Waterloo to the Jubilee line and then having to take the London Bridge/Canada Water gamble. How much better it would be to run services straight through from Charing Cross and Waterloo East, as is done today.

Also, if memory serves, the connection at Waterloo is abysmal.

I think you should focus on the improvements to rail links in the offing - ELL, potential Thameslink routings - rather than the disappearance of the direct train to Charing X. It's easy enough to change at London Bridge.

"South central" London trains are supposed to go to the terminal shed at London Bridge, just as trains on the Sevenoaks and Dartford lines and out to the Kent coast are supposed to pass through London Bridge to Charing Cross or Cannon Street. Leaving aside the more subjective argument that if you've come further, you've a better case for a direct service rather than having to change, any change in the routings above - i.e. "south central" trains through to Charing X or "Kent" trains to the terminal shed - means at-grade crossings and more conflicted train movements. This in turn reduces network capacity at what is already one of the worst bottlenecks.

Worth bearing in mind the bigger picture - like the railway companies are doing, like it or not.

I agree with hiltopgeneral - I have to change at London Bridge to get to Charing Cross or Forest Hill twice every day and it's by no menas the worst part of my journey. Most people just can't be bothered to climb a few steps. Sometimes we need to put things into perspective!

Sometimes I think it would be nice if my train went straight through to Charing Cross in a morning, but by the time they've stopped and unloaded and reloaded, the time it saves would be minimal.

All the crossings are available. The services run today so we are not asking for anything new or any additional infrastructure, just the existing services retained on a line that will have the same capacity.

Without our services through to Charing Cross I think the will be less opportunities for interchange for all Southern passengers, and will make journey times longer.

This is not a debate about taking services away from Kent commuters. We are not asking for through services on weekdays (which would be very useful to me personally), we are only asking for the continuation of our evening through services when the station is quiet enough to allow for this.

However, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Southern's plans are to cut trains to and from LB by one third (from 6 to 4tph) during the bulk of the day - between approx 10am and 5pm.

It isn't good enough to say that you have the alternative of the ELL. Getting to and from Charing Cross on the ELL isn't going to be remotely convenient or time effective.

I also agree with hilltopgeneral and jon14. We're really really lucky to be getting the Overground with its improved connections to Docklands and the Liverpool Street area, improved connections to Victoria, the maintenance of the 4tph off-peak service to London Bridge, and the future prospect of direct trains to Blackfriars, Farringdon, St Pancras and beyond.

Given all those massive improvements, changing at London Bridge for Charing X is hardly a major inconvenience, and it was only a 2tph service anyway. As hilltopgeneral said, by removing the conflicted train movements, there will be more trains between LB and CX anyway and there is less scope for delays.

In my opinion, we can't and shouldn't expect everything. I applaud the FHSoc and SydSoc in their campaigns to maintain the LB service and get the service to Victoria improved too - that effort is really fantastic and was essential for FH and Sydenham. But there are other people out there on other lines who are not getting a "tube extension" and who badly need improvements too, surely the direct connection to CX falls into the "nice to have category"?

The trains back from CX are well used and shouldn't be lost. For me it's more about the late services back (I travel for 1.5 hours to work across London in the morning with three changes of train and don't mind it).

But the last thing you want to do at 11 or 12 at night is hang around London Bridge waiting for a connection. Can't the last couple of the evening at least be retained?

hilltopgeneral said

ambient said:

If you're young and fit.

jon14 said

Some people find it quite difficult to climb a few steps.