saw 4 carriages stop at FOH today and (sad) took video on my phone - will post tomorrow if not trumped

that video

Thanks Foresters.

Just to say that I've re-emailed Joan Ruddock as she didn't respond to my earlier email sent many months ago. I wonder if she'll bother to reply this time!

I received a House of Commons envelopee in the post yesterday - containing a reply from Jim Dowd to my various emails. He included various responses he had had as a result of his making enquiries on our behalf. He also included a Hansard transcript of his adjournment debate.

It seems to me that Jim Dowd is pulling his weight despite his recent operation but Joan Ruddock is doing very little visible work on this matter.

I expect you won't get a reply from Joan Ruddock seeing as she doesn't represent FH as part of her constituency.

The trains go through Joan Ruddock's constituency. But she has a safe Labour seat. Jim has a marginal seat, which he normally holds because he looks after the voters.

Joan Ruddock is Honor Oak Park's MP so yes, the trains to affect her constituency.

When we were stuck on a train in the snow recently, I struck up a conversation with the lady next to me and she said that Joan Ruddock has been MP here for about 20 years and has been practically invisible. She is very rarely at her surgeries as well.

Joan Ruddock finally replied! Make of this what you wish...

I know from my railway experience that Joan's reply more or less is the correct technical reply. However, there are issues that have not been addressed in that reply.

The main reason why the trains from Forest Hill do not continue to London Charing Cross is that with the December 2009 timetable virtually all off peak 'fast' trains call at London Bridge in addition to their being a few additional suburban services. Every train towards London has to stop in Platform 6 at London Bridge. In the other direction those trains can be shared between Platforms 4 and 5. However, you have to stop trains in both directions or not at all.

Essentially the DfT effectively took the decision a couple of years ago that the capacity released by the diversion of the Eurostar trains should be given to Southeastern trains (meaning more trains at London Bridge). Since it was also decided by the DfT that all trains in the off peak should stop that London Bridge that effectively sounded the end of the Southern Trains to London Charing Cross.

Of course had the platform lengthening at London Bridge that was carried out in the early 1990s included a new Platform 7 (so that all trains towards London Charing Cross could stop at London Bridge) then it is likely that Southern trains would still be running to London Charing Cross.

Obviously it was the Conservatives that cut that proposal by BR. In addition it was the Conservatives that stopped the work to allow 12 car trains on the Dartford services. That work was never restarted by Labour and has still not been started, although it is now planned to be done in the next 5 years. With trains being limited to 10 cars that is partly the cause for the need to run more Southeastern trains, so preventing the Southern trains from operating.

I would hope that people remember those facts when they vote in May if they vote for Labour or Conservative.

If meeting someone at London Bridge, arrange to meet them at the gate for platform 7. Great fun!

Thanks very much, P (Stavely). This is the first comprehensible and coherent account I have read of the real reason for the withdrawal of our Charing + services.

Two questions occur to me:

-Was there any public consultation on the decision you say was taken two years ago to give all the extra capacity to South-Eastern and to allow all their trains (including off-peak) to stop at LB, and on the implications for our services to Ch+?

- the Minister said in the debate on 5 February

'Because of the provision of the additional
trains, no spare capacity exists to allow Southern services
to operate into Charing Cross. Southeastern and Southern
have worked hard to identify a solution to the problem
that would allow those trains to be accommodated
through London Bridge. It has been unable to find a
timetable solution, but it remains an aspiration of Southern
to operate services through to Charing Cross. The
Government have said that if in future Southern and
Southeastern can find a way to extend services, which
we agree is desirable, we will not stand in the way of the
operators. I have asked officials to ensure that that
option continues to be considered.'

I assume that the only way that this 'aspiration' could be realised in practice would be if South-Eastern were not allowed to stop all their trains at LB?

See my earlier post and those surrounding it.

There would have been consultation of 'Stakeholders' for the Southeastern franchise. Whether the Forest Hill Society would have been invited I do not know, certainely Lewisham Borough Council would have been invited. Of course, the DfT being the way it is just because an organisation objects does not mean that the DfT would change the timetable specification!

It would be wrong to state that if the Southeastern trains did not stop at London Bridge then that would solve all the issues, I would need to be a lot closer to the timetabliing planning process to confirm that.

However, the section between London Bridge and Waterloo East is probably the most congested National Rail tracks in the country (all the London Charing Cross services end up on a single pair of tracks). Once the Thameslink works have been completed then there is a chance that the trains could be re-extended. Unfortunately that is 2017!

Of course part of the capacity problem is that the DfT (and at least the media if not the passengers) are demanding the highest ever level of trains to be on time. Like a road if you increase the number of vehicles then without increasing the road's capacity you are more likely to experience unpredictable delay to your journey. So, on the railways, the only way to guarantee better service performance is to reduce the number of trains (or rather increase the level of spare capacity). Sadly the Forest Hill trains are the victims of that national policy.

Peter Staveley

Sorry, Foresters, I'd forgotten about the earlier exchanges (getting old, I'm afraid!) I guess the second question in my posting of earlier today has already been answered.

Sorry, I mean the first question.

The implication being that users of the service that would be improved would be consulted, but users of the service that would be degraded would not?

It was very very difficult to track down this consultation (referring back to earlier posts) and my earlier question 'Are they bound by any requirements for consultations which, if not followed, could make this one invalid?' remains unanswered.

We need to be clear what we are talking about.

The consultation discussions in November were for the South London RUS. This is a cross rail industry discussion and looks at the long term future of the rail services in its area.

The RUS (Route Ultilisation Study) tends to only look at the gaps in train service (normally only the peak periods) which then determine what investment is required for the long term. [It actually then leads the High Level Output Strategy (HLOS) which then determines how much money the industry and the Treasury have to pay Network Rail.]

As I said the RUS does not normally deal in the off peak services and the Forest Hill services are virtually never mentioned (in this context).

Each bidder for a franchise has to bid against the franchise specification. This is the detailed train service that the operator has to operate. It is this document that was important.

For the South Central timetable specification it would have said that the services will not be going to London Charing Cross. As I said there would have been some consultation by the DfT with the stakeholders. This includes local authorities and user groups. I went to a few of those meetings and I cannot remember much being said about the Charing Cross issue.

To clarify the earlier discussions the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) conduct 'consultations' about changes to Track Access Agreements (TAA). In theory anyone could send their comments to the ORR but the only Statutory Consultees are the other TOCs (Train Operating Companies). In any case the TAA follow the awarding of the franchise (and therefore follow the franchise timetable specification). All TAA consultation are there for is to protect the interests of the other TOCs, particularly the freight TOCs.

Peter Staveley

As the links included in the posts on this forum in November show, the Forest Hill Society commented on 20 July 2008 on the 'South Central Network Franchise Consultation' and said that the question of the continuation or withdrawal of CX services should be considered as part of the franchise agreement, not deferred for further investigation. It was clearly decided not to accept that proposal. On what grounds, if any, could that decision now be challenged?