Southern Rail - Consultation on Cuts to Services

Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) has launched an extensive consultation which sets out proposed changes to the timetable which will be operated by GTR in 2018 following completion of the Thameslink Programme.

These proposals include:
a) Diverting all our East Croydon services to West Croydon - making it take longer to get to Gatwick and other destinations in Sussex.
b) Reducing our peak services to London Bridge to four trains an hour (the same capacity as the rest of the day). These services would be replaced by five carriage Overground trains to Dalston Junction.
c) Increasing services via Crofton Park to four trains per hour

The Forest Hill Society opposes the first two of these changes and supports the third. But it is important that local residents respond to this survey to show the strength of feeling.

Survey responses should be completed at https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/2018timetableconsultation
To help you respond to the large number of questions across all the Southern, Thameslink, and Great Northern Services, we have compiled a list of the nine questions we believe you should answer, with some explanation of each.

Q No.	Our View	Notes
14	We recommend you respond to this based on your circumstances, but in favour of later running services on Friday and Saturday	We support the introduction of late night services from London Bridge or Canada Water. However, early morning services may be important to you.   Please mention late night services on Friday and Saturday in the comments section of this question.
17	We recommend you select Yes	This supports services through Crofton Park
29	We recommend you support this	This supports services through Crofton Park
30	We recommend you support this	This supports services through Crofton Park
58	We recommend you select No	These services would replace Forest Hill services to East Croydon
59	We recommend you select No	This makes more services fast on our line rather than stopping at Forest Hill
60	We recommend you select No	Unnecessary duplication of London Overground services to West Croydon. Enforced interchange at Norwood Junction, a station that has no step free access for interchange (on the way to Gatwick Airport).
61	We recommend you select No	These services world replaces Forest Hill services to East Croydon
67	We recommend you support SN3.1 and reject SN3.8. We also recommend you reject the reduction in peak hour services to London Bridge

Coming Down the Line

Network chaos

Since the last newsletter in the spring, train services have improved considerably — well, they really couldn’t have gotten much worse, after half of the evening peak services from London Bridge were cancelled between January and May of this year due to poor planning of services around London Bridge station’s improvements. Since May’s timetable changes, Southern trains have managed to run on a relatively reliable schedule, although there still continues to be more cancellations than anyone would like to see.

As a result of the appalling service at the beginning of the year, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) severely criticised Network Rail for their inadequacies in planning for the impact of Thameslink’s engineering work and timetabling. The ORR subsequently fined them £2m, which is not a great deal for a company that receives a £10m per day subsidy from the taxpayer; no doubt, any higher a fine would only have made it harder to achieve passenger improvements. In addition, the chairman of Network Rail was sacked and Sir Peter Hendy, one of the most respected managers in UK transportation and who had been head of Transport for London (TfL), was appointed as his successor this summer. We can only hope that Network Rail will now improve services.

The Forest Hill Society had been asking questions about changes to ticketing and timetabling — which would occur during Thameslink’s planned upgrade work at London Bridge station — for the four preceding years. Despite our continued expressions of concern, Network Rail and train operators proved that they had not adequately planned for the chaos that was to result from the temporary removal of so many tracks into or out of the station.

On a positive note, work around Bermondsey appears to be progressing well; and, this time next year, train services should be running to and from Charing Cross again albeit without direct services to and from Forest Hill (as was once the case).

Bakerloo line

You may remember, at the end of last year, TfL consulted about plans for a Bakerloo line extension to Lewisham and Hayes; and, possibly, Bromley. Not surprisingly, 96% of 15,000 respondents were in favour of such plans. Notable amongst the 4% who opposed TfL’s plans was Bromley Council, which was concerned about slower connections to London for people who would use the proposed extension to Hayes. Despite the objections, the idea of extending the Bakerloo line seems to be gaining traction, with many candidates for 2016’s London mayoral election expressing their support for the concept.

Recently, mutterings have been heard from Croydon Council about a different route for the Bakerloo line that would run to Croydon. Why this is necessary, when there are fast services from Croydon to most main line stations in London, is not clear at this stage. The location for such a route is also not clear but, given the congestion around Norwood, it is possible that tunnelling close to Croydon is being considered rather than taking over busy tracks and junctions - but all of this is speculation.

The Forest Hill Society continues to support the concept of extending the Bakerloo line. Our belief is that almost any route would be advantageous to large areas of South London, and the sooner an extension is started the better!

Newsletter: Underpass Impasse

Please note: This article was written before the most recent news on the underpass, which can be read here.

The condition of the underpass in Forest Hill has long been a thorn in the sides of local residents. Despite campaigns progress has been slow. We have managed a few patches in the footpath and to get the lights reconnected.

At a recent meeting with the Council, it was finally decided that they should proceed with refurbishing the subway. Lewisham has a budget of £126,000 (including monies from the developer of the flats on Perry Vale). This will not meet our expectations.The approved works include: installation of new drainage channels to pathway and track bed, resurfacing of the footpath, cleaning, repairing and painting over the mural ready for fresh artwork, and cladding the walls and ceiling of the section under the tracks (the part currently painted white).

The works will be carried out at the same time as the lighting is replaced under the Skanska PFI contract. At the moment, this is envisaged to happen some time after September, but the schedule for Year 2 of that contract has not yet been agreed. In the meantime, Lewisham will keep the pressure on Network Rail to come up with funds to refurbish the steps at both ends, to include repairing and renewing the treads and replacing the handrails with DDA compliant grab rails at both ends of the underpass. You can help by writing to Jim Dowd at dowdj@parliament.uk or House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA, letting him know your feelings and urging him to raise the matter with the Chief Executive of Network Rail. Here is what we sent:

Dear Jim (Dowd)

I am writing to you as the Chairman of the Forest Hill Society concerning the refurbishment of the pedestrian underpass which connects Perry Vale with the London Road side of the railway station in Forest Hill (National Rail code FOH). The Forest Hill Society is a local amenity group representing residents of Forest Hill, SE23 and its environs with some 400 members and over 1000 followers through social media.

As you may be aware, the Sydenham Society was campaigning to improve the subway long before the Forest Hill Society was formed in 2006. Since then, we have both been working with Lewisham Council, trying to make progress.

We have found it impossible to deal with Network Rail. None of our letters or phone calls have been responded to. The only time we have had any success is by working through LOROL and yourself, when we managed to get the graffiti removed from the railway bridge over the A205 - graffiti which had been there for at least 10 years.

Our dealings with Lewisham Council on this matter have been much better, but they too have had a frustrating time, repeatedly blaming Network Rail for the delays to progress - something we have been unable to contradict due to Network Rail's determined silence.

I realise that the state of the underpass may seem to be small fry to Network Rail, but this dilapidated tunnel serves to undermine the good work residents are doing to improve the Town Centre and make it more inviting for shoppers. Lewisham Council have recently invested over £10 million in a new leisure centre and the condition of the underpass is a major obstacle in the way of regenerating the area. Network Rail own the right of way, but share responsibilities for maintenance with Lewisham Council.
 
Lewisham allocated funds to refurbish the underpass before the last election in May 2010, before finally issuing provisional drawings in June 2011 after protracted dealings with Network Rail.

At a meeting on 14 May 2012, we finally agreed that Lewisham should proceed with some works, including cladding and relighting parts of the underpass, repaving the footpath and improving the drainage, but their budget will not stretch to include more parts which are Network Rail's responsibility. It has always been the ambition of Sydenham and Forest Hill Societies that any refurbishment of the subway should include renewal of the staircases at both ends and modern handrails. Not only can these works not be done within Lewisham's budget, they are Network Rail's responsibility.

Network Rail have already tacitly acknowledged that the handrails are unsatisfactory. When the lifts were being installed at Forest Hill Station, Network Rail installed temporary handrails on the staircases. These have since been removed.

Lewisham cannot afford to pay for handrails which meet 21st century regulations, nor to resurface the treads. Both of these tasks need redoing and I would urge you to press Network Rail to attend to these with urgency. Doing the works at the same time as installing the other tasks (expected sometime in September or October) would save time, money and inconvenience.

Richard Hibbert, Chair, Forest Hill Society

Route Utilisation Strategy Response

Network Rail are consulting over development of rail services beyond 2019 in their Route Utilisation Strategy for London and the South East.

Issues for consideration:

• 12 carriage trains on the Sydenham line into London Bridge
• Improved numbers of evening peak services on the Sydenham Line
• Increased frequency of services on the Crofton Park route
• Increased utilisation of the central platforms at New Cross Gate
• Integration of Bakerloo line extension options into the London and South East RUS (with interchange on the Sydenham line)
  
• Additional carriages on the East London Line
• Late evening and weekend services from central London termini

You can read the full Forest Hill Society Response here.

Good news for Rail Services

For over a year the Forest Hill Society has been campaigning against any reduction to services from Forest Hill to London Bridge. At the end of March the final version of the Route Utilisation Strategy was published and this document has included many of the recommendations put forward by the Society.

The final version of the RUS document can be viewed on the Network Rail website.

Highlights:

1. Same level of service to London Bridge from Forest Hill over the peak period.
2. Additional trains to London Bridge from Honor Oak Park (all services from Forest Hill will be stopping service).
3. Introduction of peak services to Victoria via Crystal Palace.
4. Early implementation of train lengthening, from the current 6-8 carriages in the peak up to 12 carriages. This is planned to be implemented by 2012.
5. 10 trains per hour on the East London Line (an increase from the 8 trains planned).
6. Thameslink services at peak times taking passengers from Forest Hill north of London Bridge. These services will start in 2015.

One note of caution, it is likely that between 2012 and 2015 there will be a reduction in services to London Bridge. This will be partially off set by longer trains and alternative routes via the East London Line, but it seems worthwhile to get ThamesLink services from our stations from 2015.

Thanks to the campaign we have been running we will get more trains, longer trains, and an increase in choice of destinations. All of these issues were identified in our submission to Network Rail, although we had not actually requested Thameslink trains stopping at Forest Hill. This is a welcome increase to services and good news for the people of Forest Hill.

Rail Campaign in the South London Press

Press Release from Forest Hill Society taken up by the South London Press.

Forest Hill Society Response to Rail Utilisation Strategy

Letter to Network Rail in response to the RUS consultation document:

The Forest Hill Society wish to provide some feedback on a number of aspects on the South London RUS. Overall we are disappointed that while the RUS recognises the existing overcrowding and suppressed demand on our line, it fails to deliver any significant improvements for passengers on the Forest Hill / Sydenham line. In many ways we will have a worse service as a result of the RUS than we do at present and we urge you to reconsider a number of key areas for the passengers from Forest Hill.

From the end of last year the Forest Hill Society, in conjunction with the Sydenham Society, has collected almost 1,000 signatures which can be viewed at http://fhpetition.notlong.com/. These are from local residents opposed to a reduction in services to London Bridge. The RUS provides no immediate solutions to the reduction in services that we take effect with the introduction of the East London Line.


Executive Summary of our recommendations:

• No cuts to the existing peak services to London Bridge on the Sydenham line
• Earliest possible introduction of 10-car or 12-car trains on the Sydenham line
• No cuts to services on the Sydenham line to Charing Cross
• We are pleased that the RUS recommends the continuation of direct services from Forest Hill to Victoria. We would like these to be extended to the morning peak [ed. - it is still not entirely clear that this service will continue but there is some evidence in the RUS document that it will still be run]

Option 2.3 – Increased am peak frequency on the Sydenham Line

We are disappointed that the recommendation to have an extra 2 tph refers to the East London Line rather than the London Bridge service. At present there are 8 tph on the services into London Bridge but this will be reduced to 6 tph in the current plans. Replacing these with trains on the East London Line will not make up for the loss of services to London Bridge as the trains will be shorter (4 carriages rather than 8 or 10 carriages) and the destination is wrong for the majority of commuters, who will continue to travel towards the centre of London via London Bridge and the Northern and Jubilee Lines.

The RUS (page 112) makes quite clear that the London Bridge service would be a preferable option to the East London Line option and would reduce crowding on the train services as well as at Canada Water station, which is barely able to cope with the expected increase in passengers changing platform via a single escalator.

Network Rail must look again at the capacity made available for services from Forest Hill to London Bridge and make sure that our existing capacity is not diminished. We do not request more trains than we currently have (although demand would support this), just the same level of service as is currently available on the line. The only issue here is capacity at London Bridge which appears to be being taken away from the people of Forest Hill and other stations in Lewisham.


Option 4.3 – 10-car or 12-car peak services on the Sydenham Line

We welcome the recommendation to run 10-car trains on the Forest Hill / Sydenham line. This will reduce some of the impacts of the proposed reduction in train numbers (option 2.3), but does not address the existing overcrowding and suppressed demand on this route into London Bridge. We would like to understand more about why 12-car trains would be impractical on this route as the phrase 'This is likely to lead to the conclusion that 12-car operation is impractical on this route due to constraints elsewhere limiting the suburban network to 10-car' (page 130, emphasis added). We do not believe that limitations on other parts of the network should hinder the necessary provision of services on a route with such high levels of suppressed demand.

It is disappointing to see that this increase in the lengths of trains shall not be delivered until the completion of the Thameslink Programme. We believe this is an excuse for inactivity and lack of development on our line which is not justified by any Cost Benefit Analysis. Many platforms at London Bridge low-level station are already capable of having 10-car or even 12-car trains, so it should be possible for at least some of the services on our line to be increased to 12-car trains, even if not all of them before the completion of the Thameslink Programme.

The biggest concern for us is that with the proposed reduction in services to London Bridge following the introduction of the East London Line services (and even before that with the closure of the ELL from this December), we will see an increase in overcrowding on the remaining services to London Bridge. The immediate effect of the East London Line for passengers from Forest Hill will be a reduction in services and increased overcrowding. The RUS does nothing to solve this problem until many years after the introduction of the East London Line Extension.

We recommend that work begins immediately to extend all the platforms on the Forest Hill / Sydenham line to allow for 12-car trains and that plans are built into the timetable from 2011 to allow for 10-car and at least some 12-car trains on this route. In terms of passenger demand and economics this plan is more effective than the short-term strategy of inaction outlined in the RUS.


Option 20.4 – Operation of trains from Sydenham line through to Charing Cross

The evening services from Charing Cross to Forest Hill are extremely beneficial for passengers coming home from the West End of London and are 'extremely well utilised' (page 176). Because these existing services operate outside peak times there should not be any issues with capacity beyond London Bridge. We recognise that it is not possible to run these services during peak hours, but consideration must be given to the continuation of these services into the evening off-peak hours.

Again we are not demanding any increase over our existing services (although demand would justify such an increase), but wish to see our existing services remaining during the evenings. There is no justification for the removal of this extremely well utilised service.


Existing Loop Line to Victoria

From the route map on page 203 of the RUS it appears that plans are in place to continue to run trains between London Bridge and Victoria via Forest Hill. This is already a useful service at off-peak times and enables services to run into London Bridge without using capacity south of Norwood Junction. We would like confirmation that the plan is to maintain this service in the short to medium term.

Ideally these services would run into Victoria or Clapham Junction in the morning peak to cater for the large number of commuters in the area heading for west and south west London.


Additional Options that have not been considered in the RUS:

Stopping some Thameslink trains at New Cross Gate

We propose that at least 2 tph on the Thameslink service stop at New Cross Gate after the introduction of the East London Line.

Passengers from the East London Line would then be able to change to these services to London Bridge, Kings Cross, Bedford , Gatwick and Brighton. This would reduce overcrowding on the remaining services from New Cross Gate to London Bridge by adding additional capacity, provide faster travel from Gatwick to Canary Wharf and City Airport, reduce passenger overcrowding at London Bridge station with customers changing platforms (this is recognised as a problem area in the RUS), and it would reduce overcrowding on the Northern Line for a significant number of passengers from South London wishing to continue beyond Kings Cross.

Additionally, there is a need for peak services on the Thameslink route through London Bridge. At present there are no Thameslink services before 9:30am , which adds to the inconvenience of travelling to Luton Airport, Kings Cross (for Eurostar), and other key destinations on this line. We recommend that consideration is given to running at least 2 tph on the Thameslink service via London Bridge.

We would also like to take this opportunity to make clear our opposition to the removal of terminating platforms at London Bridge which Forest Hill services currently use. It is clear from the current Thameslink plans that there will be a reduction from 9 terminating platforms to just 6, this is not enough platforms for all the South London services that make use of London Bridge. South Londoners seem to have been given little thought when developing plans for the Thameslink service.


ELL trains on the Loop Line to Victoria

There are many commuters from Forest Hill and Sydenham wishing to travel via Clapham Junction and Victoria in the morning peak. With the extension of the East London Line there will be greater interchange potential at Crystal Palace to other services to these destinations. However, we would like consideration to be given to the continuation of some of these East London Line or London Bridge service to Clapham Junction or Victoria. This would provide a useful loop for passengers from South East London travelling to South West and West London , reducing congestion at London Bridge and on Jubilee Line services from London Bridge to Westminster.

We understand that there are capacity issues at peak times around Victoria as well as London Bridge , so termination at Clapham Junction, or joining the 4-car ELL trains with other short services to Victoria may be viable options.

It is disappointing that no consideration was given to better use of this service as part of the RUS.


I hope that you will incorporate our feedback and suggestions in the future development of train services in South London.