Debate on Lewes Rail Timetable

[luked...@googlemail.com]

You may have heard that there was an adjournment debate in the House
of Commons yesterday evening regarding Southern's November timetable
alterations led my Norman Baker MP. There is some hope that extra
carriages may now be added, but there were no firm promises and, as we
all know, this is only a part of the problem.

Nigel endorses a lot of what Mr Baker has said in the House and
congratulates his securing of the debate. He wishes to add his
disappointment that Southern's May timetable has failed so dismally to
address the problems created by November's RUS. Furthermore, Nigel
laments Ministers' customary complacency in the face of serious
commuter grievances.

I have added the Hansard of the debate below for ease of reference.

10.11 pm
Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): I wish to raise a constituency matter
relating to rail services to my constituency, and in particular the
impact of the new timetable introduced on 14 December last year. It is
fair to say that in the years leading up to last December, my
constituents were seeing an improved railway service. We had got over
the disaster of the existence of Railtrack and seen new rolling stock
introduced and the replacement of Connex with Southern. The number of
complaints that I was receiving about rail services was reducing,
although of course there were still one or two.

All that was good, but there has been an avalanche of complaints from
my constituents since the new timetable was brought in on 14 December.
The reason for that is that it is fragile by its very nature and
disadvantages my constituents in Lewes, Polegate, Seaford, Newhaven,
Plumpton and elsewhere. Part of the discussion that took place before
the new timetable came in was about what should happen to the Gatwick
Express service. A common view—the majority view—was that the
dedicated Gatwick Express service should cease, as it occupied
platforms with stationary trains at Gatwick, blocking the lines. That
was the view of Southern, the current train operating company. The
view that it put forward, to which I subscribe, was that the
replacement of that dedicated service with trains running through to
Brighton or elsewhere would have led to a much more robust and better
timetable.

The Government were in a difficult position, but I am sorry to say
that they appeared to take the side of the aviation industry. They
allowed the dedicated Gatwick Express service to continue, albeit in
modified form with certain trains routed through to Brighton. The
consequence has been that the timetable has been thrown into disarray,
with grave consequences for my constituents. Notably, there are now
trains running through to Brighton that are lightly loaded, while
trains running through to Lewes and Eastbourne are heavily
overcrowded. The 18.45 dedicated service to Gatwick from Victoria, for
example, has a load of less than 40 per cent., whereas the 18.47 train
from Victoria to Lewes and on to Eastbourne has standing room only to
Lewes, not least because the number of carriages has been reduced from
eight to four on that service. What we have seen overall—Southern has
confirmed the figures for me—is four fewer carriages in the rush hour
running through to Lewes and Eastbourne than there were before the
timetable changes were introduced.

I should like to cite one or two examples from constituents for the
Minister. I have received a large number of complaints from
constituents. It is not possible to do justice to them all this
evening, but it is possible to refer to some of them. Southern appears
also to have been inundated with complaints, because I am now
receiving complaints about its failure to respond to complaints. I did
not receive such complaints before, so clearly Southern is overwhelmed
with correspondence as well.

Here is a typical e-mail from one of my constituents in Seaford:

“the decision to reduce the number of carriages on peak time trains
from London Bridge has resulted in severe overcrowding
5 May 2009 : Column 145
on a daily basis. And this at a time when fares have also been
increased by well over the rate of inflation.

As a disabled person, the overcrowding is not just difficult but can
some days make it impossible for me to travel and I have to get off
the train again due to the severe pain and discomfort. This in turn
has a serious impact on my work as I have had to miss several
important meetings because of this over the past few months. In view
of that I have recently resorted to travelling first class—at
considerable extra cost of around £75 per week—but even then I am
still unable to get a seat on some days. For example, on the 17.23
from London Bridge on 13th March, the guard announced that ‘Due to
overcrowding I have decided to decommission the 1st Class Carriages
and now any standard class passenger can use this space.’ This was the
second time this had happened in a week...again on 8th April, all
first class seats were taken and there was severe overcrowding in all
parts of the train, with the result that I had to stand all the way to
Gatwick—at which point I had to give up and get off and get a taxi
home instead because I was in such discomfort.”

A further complaint by a local pressure group draws attention to the
following: short formation as a matter of policy on the 16.17 service
from Victoria to Eastbourne, which has now been reduced to four
carriages; short formation on the 16.57 service, the following train
from Victoria to Eastbourne; the removal of the 17.17 London Victoria-
to-Seaford and Ore service; serious overcrowding on the 17.23 service
from London Bridge, which is the service to which the other
constituent whom I have quoted referred; people standing to Haywards
Heath or beyond; and the constant late running of the 18.06 service
from Victoria to Eastbourne, which is described by the group as a
“systematic failing”.

My third example is from a constituent who says:

“The weekday service from Victoria in the rush hour between 17.00 and
19.00 is worse than on Saturdays...There is a grotesque imbalance
between services to Brighton (very frequent, long trains) and to Lewes
(infrequent, short trains)...As an absolute minimum, the Lewes portion
of the 18.47 service should return to at least 8 coaches urgently,
instead of the ludicrous 4 at present”.

He makes the following suggestion:

“Why not convert at least one of the early evening extended Gatwick
Express services from serving Brighton to serving Lewes/Eastbourne
instead?”

He also bemoans the fact that the new timetable from 17 May shows no
improvements to the December timetable, despite all the kerfuffle and
the protests, in order to rectify the damage that has been done.

I understand the various pressures that exist, with a lot of trains
seeking to use limited infrastructure. Of course there is a need to
balance services on different bits of the network. However, I hope the
Minister will accept that the new timetable is not working for my
constituents in Lewes or for those in Eastbourne. Perhaps naturally,
blame has been levelled at the rail company, which is not entirely
without blame for how it has handled the matter. However, the crude
political reality is that the company is bidding again for its
franchise, as are its three competitors, and is therefore not going to
tell the Government, “Your timetable has caused most of these
problems.” However, my honest assessment as a local Member of
Parliament is that the changes to the timetable that were imposed on
Southern, not the timetable that Southern wanted, have caused most of
the problems.

I hope we will get a recognition from the Minister that the problem
exists. I hope he will not tell me that it does not exist. If he does,
I will send that comment to all the hundreds of people who have
contacted me about the matter since the new timetable was introduced.
5 May 2009 : Column 146
I hope he will accept that there is an imbalance between the services
to Brighton and those to Lewes. I hope he will also accept, as a
matter of fact, that one of the problems with the Gatwick service, to
which I have referred, is that the Government have now imposed a
requirement on Southern to run trains through from Brighton to
Gatwick, and then on to Victoria without stopping. The consequence is
that many of the people from Brighton also feel aggrieved because they
want to access East Croydon and Clapham Junction but now have fewer
direct trains that will allow them to do that. That leads to more
pressure being put on the Brighton trains—and trains from other
destinations, including Littlehampton and Eastbourne—that do stop at
East Croydon and Clapham Junction. People are encouraged to use those
trains, which leads to overcrowding on those services.

Does the Minister have any figures, from Southern or elsewhere,
relating to the overcrowding on particular services? Does he see it as
his job to get those figures and then to decide that the timetable
should be recast, or does he take the view that this is a matter for
Southern to sort out with the rolling stock that it has? I hope that
he does not take that latter view, although he could doubtless say
that Members on both sides of the House accuse the Department for
Transport of micro-management. On this occasion, however, I might
welcome some micro-management from the Department.

There is also a problem with the rolling stock. I do not mean with the
type of rolling stock, which is adequate. The problem is that there is
not enough of it. A new timetable was brought in when there was
insufficient rolling stock to operate it, because the rolling stock
that had been promised simply had not materialised. Southern was also
required to operate extra bits round the edges which had not been part
of the original franchise, such as the line to Tonbridge and services
previously run by South West Trains that had been abandoned and that
Southern had picked up. No extra rolling stock was provided to form
those services, yet Southern has been leant on by the Department for
Transport to hand rolling stock over to Thameslink and First Capital
Connect in order that they can run their services.

There is an absolute shortage of rolling stock in the south central
area. Will the Minister tell me when that shortage will be corrected?
I would also like an assurance that when the rolling stock imbalance
is corrected, the reduction in the number of carriages running to
Lewes, Eastbourne and Polegate in the evening peak will be corrected,
and that he will at the very least restore the number of carriages
running to Lewes in the evening peak, rather than leaving us four
down, as is presently the case.

This all comes down to a wider problem, albeit one that the Government
inherited. The timetable on which the south central franchise is
presently operating is essentially the one that was run by British
Rail many decades ago. It has been built on in a higgledy-piggledy
fashion, with various changes, ever since. The timetable is, to use a
well worn cliché, no longer fit for purpose.

There is a desperate need to rewrite the timetable entirely for the
south central region, not simply to eliminate the problems that I have
identified tonight, and not simply to get more efficiency in the
timetable to prevent the delays that are now occurring. Incidentally,
the punctuality targets have been woefully missed by
5 May 2009 : Column 147
Southern since the new timetable came in; they have been way below 75
per cent. on many occasions. If the Government envisage passenger
numbers growing—I think that they do, and I support them in that
objective—where will the capacity on the south central franchise come
from, 10 years down the track? Under the present signalling
arrangements, there are now trains at every train path in the rush
hour, but there are no plans for extra tracks. There are also no plans
to reconfigure East Croydon, which needs to be done if we are to get
more capacity on the line. There are not even any plans to reopen the
line between Lewes and Uckfield, which would provide an alternative
northbound route from the south coast to Victoria, assuming that we
could get the East Croydon bottleneck sorted out as part of the
process.

I suggest to the Minister that one of the cheaper options—I do not
pretend that it is without problems, or that it could be done overnight
—would be to reconfigure the timetable entirely, starting with a blank
piece of paper. We need to forget the house of cards that was built
into the British Rail timetables of the 1960s and 1970s, and to draw
up a timetable that meets people’s needs. The existing one has been
designed to fit in with whatever space is available, with all the
problems that that creates. A new timetable would also have the
benefit of creating passenger incentives. A further benefit would be
an end to timetable padding and the unnecessarily long journey times
between Lewes, Polegate, Seaford and London.

When I was a researcher in the House in the late 1980s, the shortest
train journey time from Lewes to Victoria was 49 minutes on a slam-
door mark 1 stock train. That rolling stock has been replaced by much
faster Electrostar trains, yet the shortest journey time between Lewes
and Victoria today is 63 minutes— 14 minutes longer than it was 20
years ago. I emphasise that that is the shortest journey it is
possible to make; many journeys are considerably longer within the
allowed timetabling. For the reasons I have given, part of the problem
is that the Government, Network Rail and the train operating companies
have built a timetable on shifting sands—an unsafe and insecure base
on which to build a timetable. It is also the case that this problem
muddies the waters and lets train companies to pad timetables and
allow themselves extra time to reach destinations in order to meet
their punctuality targets.

How can it be, for example, that the normal time allowed to get from
Clapham Junction to London Victoria on my service is nine minutes, yet
the journey time back from London Victoria to Clapham Junction is six
minutes? I am not aware of any particularly severe gradient on that
journey; it is simply the rail company building in three minutes of
spare capacity to give itself time to get there and meet its
punctuality targets. While punctuality was a problem, as it certainly
was four or five years ago, perhaps that made some sense, but we
should now concentrate on journey times, particularly in commuter
land.

Outside commuter areas—this applies to the west coast main line, for
example—there is competition from air travel and, in a sense, that
incentivises a train company to get journey times down, but there is
no such incentive on commuter lines, so the Government and the Office
5 May 2009 : Column 148
of Rail Regulation should intervene to ensure that journey times are
not absurdly long simply to enable train companies to meet their
punctuality targets. As I say, the poor timetable itself is what
allows that particular problem to be masked in a way that it should
not be.

There are other changes that a new timetable should bring along with it
—including, for example, an hourly service to Plumpton. Over the
years, I have managed, working with others, incrementally to increase
the number of trains to Plumpton station. They used to be for rush
hours only, but now they run by and large throughout the day, but
still with a three-hour gap in the middle. Why is that gap not filled?
Why cannot we simply have one train an hour; even the faulty timetable
we have at the moment would allow that, yet we have seen no progress
from Southern on that matter.

Worryingly, the new franchise arrangements specify the old timetable
rather than the improved one to Plumpton, so that raises the
possibility of further cuts to, rather than an improvement in,
services to that station. Will the Minister specifically look at the
situation in Plumpton and see what he can do to ensure an hourly
service for my constituents? I appreciate that the Minister may not be
able to answer this particular point and one or two others I have
raised tonight, but if so, I hope that either he or his noble Friend
Lord Adonis will drop me a line with answers to any specific questions
not addressed tonight.

Lastly, let me say that I am a supporter of the railways. I believe in
getting people on the trains for environmental and social reasons. I
also by and large welcome the direction of travel in which the
Government are engaged; it is something that I mostly support. I
believe that the Rail Minister, Lord Adonis, is doing a particularly
good job, and I am happy to say so in public, on the record and in the
House. Over the years I have been MP for Lewes, I have seen a steady
improvement in the quality of rail services to my constituency, but
that improvement came to an end in December in a sort of own goal by
the rail industry and the Government, so I am now asking the
Government to recognise the problem and to try to correct it.

As a minimum, we need an increased number of carriages to Lewes in the
rush hour—at the very least, back to the number there were before the
timetable changed in December. We need more rolling stock on the 18.47
in particular, as it is standing room only all the way to Lewes on
some occasions. We need to redress the balance of carriages between
Lewes and Brighton, and we need a commitment, either from the
Government or from Network Rail or the ORR—I do not mind who it comes
from—that when the timetable is rewritten for December, these matters
will be taken on board. There should also be an overall commitment to
a complete rewrite of the timetable for the south central region; the
Sussex route utilisation strategy now under way provides the
opportunity to do that. I say to the Government that they have made
some real improvements to rail transport, so it is such a shame to
have gone backwards now, as we have as a result of the December
timetable. I look to the Minister for his help and support in
correcting that.

10.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Clark):
At the outset, I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)
on securing this
5 May 2009 : Column 149
debate about rail services on the Brighton main line and the effect of
the timetable changes on his Lewes constituents.

The hon. Gentleman acknowledged the substantial investment that has
gone in and benefited many towns in Sussex, where, 10 years ago, there
was a shabby service provided by the 40-year-old, slam-door rolling
stock to which he referred. How they rattled and bumped around the
county, providing a poor service. Over these past 10 years, however,
we have seen improved services and better rolling stock, as he
recognised.

Many of the services and the rolling stock operating in Sussex use
some of the 744 new vehicles that have been on the Southern network
since 2003. They are modern, air conditioned and fit for purpose for
21st century travelling. However, I equally recognise the hon.
Gentleman raising an issue that he refers to as timetable padding. I
acknowledge that issue as one he has followed up on a number of
occasions—indeed recently, in a letter to my noble Friend the Minister
of State.

The hon. Gentleman referred in his letter, as he did in the debate, to
the time taken to complete journeys, saying that

“new...rolling-stock... ought, all other things being equal, to have
reduced journey times.”

But of course, all other things are not equal, because there are more
trains, more passengers, greater demand and additional services that
are providing a service to his constituents. Indeed, between 1998 and
2007, patronage in the Sussex route utilisation strategy area
increased by some 45 per cent. That is a great success story for
Government policy towards investing in what is fundamentally important
in our national rail system, as well as the provision to make it
safer, more effective and more efficient—additional resources and
seats on those trains to meet the requirements of the travelling
public. However, work has to be undertaken to manage that demand,
which brings with it certain issues.

I believe that the travelling public would prefer a timetable that
tells them a reliable time for their arrival at the destination they
want, rather than shaving two or three minutes off their journey. They
want reliability and affordability. For evidence of that, I look to
the major overhaul undertaken by South West Trains in December 2004,
which introduced extended, not shortened, journey times, as well as
features such as regular repeating service patterns. That timetable
change achieved a significant improvement in punctuality, accompanied
by a sharp rise in passenger satisfaction ratings.

A consultation exercise was undertaken to establish what stakeholders
wished to see in the new south central franchise, which is due to
commence in September. Few respondents placed importance on journey
time reductions. The majority commented on the things that matter to
them—capacity, service reliability and passenger information—as the
most important issues. They want to know that trains will arrive on
time, as laid out in the timetable.

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said about the timetable. There
are many competing demands. The good residents of Eastbourne demand
faster trains to London with fewer stops, and, as he said, there is a
demand for better services for a number of stations in his
constituency. There must be a balance that can meet those
requirements.


5 May 2009 : Column 150

Many of the characteristics of today’s railway tables are a feature of
railway history. Large towns such as Bexhill are an example. Bexhill
is located on a line that was originally built as a local route to
connect the coastal towns of Kent and East Sussex, rather than as a
fast route to London. As a result, it takes some 110 minutes to travel
from Bexhill to Victoria. Battle, which is a much smaller town in
relative terms and is barely five miles away, is located on a direct
line to London Bridge, and the journey time is just 70 minutes.

One of the main problems associated with the specification of faster
journey times is the negative impact that they have on the network
capacity. Capacity is most effectively used when all trains on the
route have identical performance characteristics. Unfortunately, that
does not happen, because, as I have said, there are many competing
demands. The Brighton main line is a perfect example, because it is
used to satisfy many requirements. There is a strong demand for
express trains to such places as Gatwick airport and Brighton, but
there is also a requirement to serve quieter stations such as Balcombe
and Wivelsfield and the various divergent routes: East Grinstead,
Redhill, Arun Valley, and the east and west coastways. All those use
different rolling stock with their own particular characteristics. The
combination means that no trains, even Gatwick Express trains, can be
timetabled in a way that will exploit the full potential of modern
high-performance rolling stock.

Looking at the timetable that exists today, I think it remarkable that
such great achievements have been made. I recognise that problems have
been caused by the introduction of the 14 December timetable, about
which I shall say more later. However, let me list some of the
problems with which the train planners must grapple. There is the
dedicated use of the Gatwick Express trains on platforms 13 and 14 at
Victoria. There is the restrictive layout of approaches to London
Bridge. There are the conflicting moves at the various flat junctions
such as Battersea Park, Streatham Common and Gloucester Road, and the
convergence of multiple suburban routes in the Croydon area. There is
also the two-track railway between Three Bridges and Brighton.

The new timetable is fragile and vulnerable. While I recognise that
its introduction on 14 December led to a further deterioration in the
performance measurement that we normally use, that was partly due to
failures in infrastructure. Rolling stock was also a problem, as was
severe weather in one of the periods, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman
will remember. But the public performance measure for March was 91 per
cent., and the April figure was 94 per cent. I do not think that that
indicates a failing timetable.

The timetable that has been introduced was consulted on for three
years. It was not imposed. Overall, there has been a 10 per cent.
increase in the number of seats available during the peak period
between Victoria and Brighton. As I think the hon. Gentleman
recognised, a compromise had to be reached in terms of the non-stop
Gatwick Express to the capital, but also in the introduction of more
seats for commuters on the Brighton main line. As for the number of
complaints received by Southern trains, according to figures from the
company, the number of complaints about timetable issues has been only
about 5 per cent. of the total number.


5 May 2009 : Column 151

I recognise that there are rolling-stock issues, but I am pleased to
be able to inform the House that 15 of the 17 units of the class 442s
are now in service and are being utilised on the routes. There have
also been staff training issues, which have now been addressed, and
that, too, will help in the provision of the service. In the last
three weeks, in recognition of issues raised by Members and others,
some adjustment has been made to create an additional Brighton to
London Bridge
5 May 2009 : Column 152
service and to amend the timings of nine services to improve the
resilience of the timetable.

I will investigate the issue of the cutback from eight-carriage to
four-carriage cars and write to the hon. Gentleman, because that
should not be the case. I have said that the timetable was not
imposed.

Luke de Pulford
(Researcher to Nigel Waterson MP)

[Andrew Leach]

On May 6, 5:01 pm, "lukedp2...@googlemail.com"

<lukedp2...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> You may have heard that there was an adjournment debate in the House
> of Commons yesterday evening regarding Southern's November timetable
> alterations led my Norman Baker MP. There is some hope that extra
> carriages may now be added, but there were no firm promises and, as we
> all know, this is only a part of the problem.
>
> Nigel endorses a lot of what Mr Baker has said in the House and
> congratulates his securing of the debate. He wishes to add his
> disappointment that Southern's May timetable has failed so dismally to
> address the problems created by November's RUS. Furthermore, Nigel
> laments Ministers' customary complacency in the face of serious
> commuter grievances.
>
> I have added the Hansard of the debate below for ease of reference.

I'm grateful for the record of the debate; although as a *debate* it's
a little disappointing, as there should have been an examination of
the minister's response.

Yet again, the Department for Transport has answered complaints about
the Coastway service with the improvements in the Brighton service.
I'm sure there's a certain transitive verb which the "f" in "DfT"
could stand for.

Hopefully raising things in the Commons will have lit the blue
touchpaper to make Southern wake up and do something useful. Let's see
what happens.

Andrew

[jpryanuk]

Frankly I doubt it, As long as Southern are in control I cannot see
any chance of improvements taking place. They will always use the
Brighton improvements as a get-out clause.

The management will not do anything about the problem unless they are
forced to do so, they cant afford to. The only way of doing this is by
making it very clear how angry their customers are and pushing for a
change.

[Toby A Inkster]

On 6 May 2009, at 17:56, Andrew Leach wrote:

> I'm grateful for the record of the debate; although as a *debate* it's
> a little disappointing, as there should have been an examination of
> the minister's response.

Adjournment debates are rarely proper head-to-head debates. They tend
to just be a way for MPs to publicly vent on issues that have been
bothering them.

--
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:ma...@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>