Re: Southern East Coastway Commuters Re: View this page: "Southern Corporate Information"

[Tehrani, Mori (IT)]

Couple of thoughts as what we have and do today is clearly not working and we continue to suffer.

If we are serious about this and want to make a difference, then:


1. Suggest we create a Eastbourne/seaford/Hampden Park/Polegate/Berwick/Glynde passenger pressure grp

2. Select a chair, secretary/treasurer

3. Open membership and leaflet to get members

4. Need to agree a fee £5 to cover leaflet/database/travel cost etc

5. Agree a scope and agenda for the grp

6. Use a different method for communication as this Google tool seems to be based on snail mail.

7. Establish link with Souther/local MP/regional press.

I don't mind offering my name to drive this but if others have different views for us to convey our frustration/views to Southern, I'm all ears.

Rgds

Mori

----- Original Message -----
From: southern-east-co...@googlegroups.com <southern-east-co...@googlegroups.com>
To: Southern East Coastway Commuters <southern-east-co...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri Feb 20 17:08:50 2009
Subject: Southern East Coastway Commuters Re: View this page: "Southern Corporate Information"


Hi Maggie,

The data published on their website is even lower at 70.3% for the
East Coastway.

I'm not sure why there's a difference, or why it took them approx. 2
weeks to post the information.

Bernard

On 17 Feb, 09:21, maggiew <margaret.whiteh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I noticed on the poster in Seaford station that punctuality dropped to
> 70.9% for the period ending 31st Jan!
>
> On Jan 31, 3:28 pm, Berni <b.vanhaef...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Southern presentation to Passenger Focus on how their poor performance
> > is not their fault.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not intend to waive confidentiality or privilege. Use of this email is prohibited when received in error.

[Borkett, Mike]

Mori

You have my vote

Mike Borkett APMP
Bid Manager
UK SME
Professional Services

DDI: +44 (0) 20 7390 3186
Mob: +44 (0) 79580 73303
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7863 5026
www.colt.net

Data | Voice | Managed Services

Help reduce your carbon footprint | Think before you print

COLT Telecommunications, Beaufort House, 15 St Botolph Street, London, EC3A 7QN UK
Registered in England and Wales, registered number 02452736, VAT number GB 645 4205 50

*************************************************************************************
The message is intended for the named addressee only and may not be disclosed to or used by anyone else, nor may it be copied in any way.

The contents of this message and its attachments are confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the named addressee and/or have received this message in error, please advise us by e-mailing secu...@colt.net and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies.

Internet communications are not secure and COLT does not accept responsibility for this message, its contents nor responsibility for any viruses.

No contracts can be created or varied on behalf of COLT Telecommunications, its subsidiaries or affiliates ("COLT") and any other party by email Communications unless expressly agreed in writing with such other party.

Please note that incoming emails will be automatically scanned to eliminate potential viruses and unsolicited promotional emails. For more information refer to www.colt.net or contact us on +44(0)20 7390 3900.

[Paul]

Good idea would this then preclude Plumpton, Cooksbridge and Lewes?

Paul

2009/2/20 Tehrani, Mori (IT) <Mori.T...@morganstanley.com>

[Phil Harris]

Mori,

 

I am happy to support this - excellent idea

 

Regards

 

Phil

 

---------------------------------------------
Phil Harris
Managing Director
Sirrah Software Solutions Ltd
Newhaven
East Sussex, BN9 0LZ
Reg No: 05707135

 

Office: 01273 516800
Mobile: 07748 184719
---------------------------------------------

Sirrah Software Solutions is a Jenann Systems Company

---------------------------------------------

 

[Andrew Leach (Maps API Guru)]

On Feb 20, 5:35 pm, "Tehrani, Mori \(IT\)"

<Mori.Tehr...@morganstanley.com> wrote:

> 6. Use a different method for communication as this Google tool seems to be based on snail mail.

Everything else sounds good, but this particular point could be
addressed by not moderating every post to the group.

It's possible to set the group to "Moderate new members" which is
quite an effective spam-trap device, and then allows real posters real-
time access to posting once their first post has been approved. I help
to manage http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Maps-API which has
over 36000 members, and that method works.

(I'm also happy to help with moderating this group, if that would
improve things)

Andrew

[Waite, Deidre]

Mori

You have my vote too.

Deidre Waite
Department Support Manager
Corporate Tax
Baker & McKenzie LLP
100 New Bridge Street
London EC4V 6JA
Tel: + 44 20 7919 1467
Fax: + 44 20 7919 1999
deidre...@bakernet.com

Baker & McKenzie LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number 0C311297. A list of members' names is open to inspection at its registered office and principal place of business, 100 New Bridge Street, London, EC4V 6JA. Baker & McKenzie LLP is a member of Baker & McKenzie International, a Swiss Verein.

This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message. Please visit www.bakernet.com/disclaimer_london for other important information concerning this message, including with respect to Baker & McKenzie LLP's regulatory position.

[Toby A Inkster]

On 20 Feb 2009, at 17:35, Tehrani, Mori ((IT)) wrote:

> 1. Suggest we create a Eastbourne/seaford/Hampden Park/Polegate/
> Berwick/Glynde passenger pressure grp

Is Lewes's absence from this list an accidental omission, or for some
particular reason?

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

[Adebayo Ogunbufunmi]

The group probably wants to include Lewes, Plumpton & Cooksbridge ... more numbers

[Andrew Leach]

On Mar 3, 6:46 pm, Adebayo Ogunbufunmi <adebayo.ogunbufu...@gmail.com>
wrote in another thread:

> The group probably wants to include Lewes, Plumpton & Cooksbridge ... more
> numbers

One problem that we have with increasing numbers is that it also
increases opinions and competing interests!

I think we need to come up with a scheme which will improve
reliability for the majority of rail users between Hastings [or
Ashford] and Brighton/Haywards Heath, and present that to Southern. It
won't be easy if it's possible at all to make it a detailed scheme, as
we don't have access to stock, staff or routing information, but I
believe it would be possible to come up with a workable outline.

I've already suggested one such, which would have helped everyone
except those who use Hampden Park, and provoked a chorus of protest.

Nevertheless, we'll never get Southern to listen to complaints which
just say "It's not working: fix it." We need to get them to think
seriously about provision on Coastway East: so, at the risk of
upsetting people again, here's one idea. Stopping pattern is identical
in both directions.

General principle: run trains fast for as long as possible on the
London end of the journey.
Hastings-Eastbourne-Lewes-London: all stations to Lewes then Haywards
Heath and fast to East Croydon (Pevensey Bay and Normans Bay might be
a restricted service).
Seaford-Lewes-Haywards Heath: all stations, with one or two services
morning and evening into London, possibly joining on to another
service at Haywards Heath.
[Hastings-] Eastbourne-Lewes-Brighton: semi-fast Hastings to Lewes
then all stations to Brighton.

Trains to/from Hastings should only call at Hampden Park once. As more
people travel from Eastbourne than Hampden Park, that stop should be
on the Hastings side of the journey.

Getting to Gatwick from Eastbourne would involve changing at Haywards
Heath, but that doesn't mean changing platforms. Seaford or Berwick to
Brighton would mean changing at Lewes but there are lifts. Berwick to
Plumpton would mean changing at Lewes but it's the same platform.

Making sure that each non-interchange station is only on one route
should help dovetailing of services. Running trains through to
Hastings removes the connection at Hampden Park which is almost always
missed and is difficult anyway (no lifts; bridge or level crossing).

Southern would need to do **proper** analysis of passenger numbers to
ensure that stock is correctly allocated, but removing stops like
Three Bridges, Gatwick and Horley -- handing them back to the main
line -- should help with that.

The question of which London terminus is used is more problematic, and
this plan doesn't address that. Whatever happens, the timing of London
Bridge services, which are less popular than Victoria and so are bound
to be fewer, is crucial. The current evening peak services are
definitely wrongly planned.

The same "Fast for as far as possible" principle could probably be
introduced across the Southern network by terminating trains at
Brighton, Haywards Heath, Three Bridges or Gatwick, East Croydon or
Purley, etc. That sort of plan works for Southeastern, whose London
paths are more restricted even than Southern's. But that's outside the
scope of this group, I suppose.

If you like this general idea, please say so. If you don't like
something, please suggest how you would vary it -- and if you hate it
so badly that you want something entirely different, please feel free
to suggest what you feel would be better!

Andrew

[Paul Keen]

Andrews Idea.

I think on the whole the "fast as possible for as long as possible"
method has to be favoured.

With regards to Hampden Park, I think it should be on the London side of
Eastbourne. Its only a matter of minutes added to the trip to Eastbourne
and no change to the total journey to Hastings/Ore. Having the HP stop
on the Hastings side adds a good 10 minutes (depending on how long they
take to mess about with the disconnection at Eastbourne), not to mention
a little sole destroying seeing your stop go sailing past.

They will need to stop some trains at HP on the way out of Eastbourne to
allow Passengers to get back to HP from Eastbourne, but the trains which
are London and Brighton Bound can pick up this slack? Or maybe the
Hastings/Ore train still stops, because again its only a minute or two
gained. Also as the representative from Southern said at the town hall,
on areas where they have only 2 lines there is not much advantage in
missing stops as ultimately there is nowhere to go as you cant overtake
a stopping train that is ahead of you.

The place to gain time is when the tracks open up nearer London, which
without access to their mapping system is pretty impossible to suggest
time scales.

I think the meeting at the town hall highlighted the reason for the cuts
in service. 6 trains to London from Brighton in the AM and 6 back in the
PM. This clogs up the limited capacity and means no matter how clever
our routes are, there is just no time for them on the schedule. Southern
say this is out of their hands with DFT, so I guess its them we need to
harass.

2 options:

They either cut down the 6 services which seams excessive. Even if they
need that many trains, they cant take complete preference over the rest
of us. If that was the case, they should install a red light at the A27
> A23 connection and hold all the cars up until all the "Special ones"
in Brighton have passed out or in.

OR... more tracks... ok, bit of a long term solution, but if they really
want us to ditch our cars, its something that will have to happen. And
in the mean time they can just be a bit more fair with the preferences
on the tracks that exist.

FYI they have done a similar cut here and there to people joining the
Brighton line from the West, so the focus (by Southern choice or not) is
definitely on trains Brighton<>London.

Paul Keen

ITG Services - Security and Gateway
Arup Global IT Services

13 Fitzroy Street
London
W1T 4BQ
Tel: 0207 755 3088

Paul...@Arup.Com

-----Original Message-----
From: southern-east-co...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:southern-east-co...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of

Andrew Leach
Sent: 06 March 2009 12:24
To: Southern East Coastway Commuters

____________________________________________________________
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business
systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses

[Adebayo Ogunbufunmi]

Looks a bit complicated but your initial point is absolutely spot on

[Paul]

Andrew I see what you are trying to achieve and do not disagree with the concept I have two issues:-

I connect at Clapham Junction and go to Plumpton. The provision put forward will leave me worse off than the present scheme.

I will try and think of alternatives to put to the group

Paul

2009/3/6 Andrew Leach <andrew....@googlemail.com>

[simond]

Re: Hampden Park and connections

As I've implied before, I hope the new group will represent commuters
from east of Hampden Park (and I also hope it will take into account
people who change at Clapham Jct!).

In prinicple, I reckon that connections at Hampden Park are good idea,
but they are practical only if (1) the train-change time is enough to
allow for, say, three minutes late arrival at HP in the morning and,
say, six minutes late in the evening and (2) trains usually run no
more than a few minutes late.

If the group is going to take us "on board", I would suggest a survey
of the commuters affected to find out whether they agree with me on
this or just want services that run via Eastbourne and take them
through HP twice.

Simon

> Paul.K...@Arup.Com

> systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses- Hide quoted text -

[Berni]

Hi Simon,

Please have a look at the Terms of Reference page recently published
and let me know if it addresses your concern. One issue we do have is
that there are established user groups (recognised by Southern) that
cover elements of the East Coastway line e.g. Bexhill, Brighton, and
Plumpton.

Regards

Berni

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[simond]

Thanks, Berni. I hadn't read the document before and I am happy with
what it says. (I suspect my concerns are much the same as those of
members of the Bexhill group, although I'm not so far along the line,
so I hope the two associations will find it easy to work together.)
Best wishes, Simon