Here are extracts from Norman Baker's response to the consultation on the new south central rail franchise:
1.While I understand the wish of the Department to provide a common end-point for both the South Central and Thameslink franchises, I think it is highly regrettable that the South Central franchise is programmed to run for a mere 5 years and 10 months. It is difficult to see how the successful bidder for the franchise can make very much progress in such a short period of time, as investment will be necessarily limited to what can generate a payback within that short period of time. Indeed, I suspect that for the last two years of the franchise period, the concentration on the following franchise period and preparing a bid for that. I think therefore this is a missed opportunity and will lead to the successful franchise bidder doing little more than treading water.
The further comments below are therefore in the context of a franchise period of 5 years 10 months and what can reasonably be achieved in that period, rather than representing the improvements within the franchise area which I believe could have been realised with a longer franchise.
2.I believe the opportunity of a new franchise should be taken by Network Rail to achieve a full rewrite of the timetable for the South Central area. It is quite clear that the present timetable is inadequate in a number of respects, as services have been bolted on and deducted from a timetable essentially inherited from British Rail. It therefore takes insufficient account both of changes in population travelling patterns and of the nature and capability of the rolling stock presently in use on the railway. In particular, the limitations caused by the pattern of train paths means that journey times between the south coast and London are unnecessarily long and a timetable rewrite ought to be able to reduce journey times from, say, Lewes to London by around 15 minutes. I have met representatives from Southern and gone through their timetable with them in detail, as it relates to the line between Lewes and London, and it is quite clear that time savings could be made and that the constraint is the timetable and the allocation of train paths, rather than the ability of the rolling stock to meet a shorter journey time, which could in fact be achieved without using significantly or perhaps even any more power at all. I am happy to expand my thoughts on the timetable with one of your officials if that were thought to be helpful.
3.It is vital that the under provision of rolling stock on particular lines is addressed by the successful bidder and that the Department of Transport in its actions facilitates the provision of extra rolling stock on particular lines. I refer specifically to the service between Brighton and Ashford which, as you will know from previous correspondence, is heavily overused, particularly the western end of the operation, with loadings way in excess of acceptable levels between Brighton and Eastbourne in particular. In my view, this service ought to be operated by four car trains, or three car trains at the very least. The extra carriage provides more than a fifty percent increase in seats, of course, given the requirements under the DDA and the provision of a disabled toilet in one carriage.
4.There is a particular issue in Newhaven which I believe ought to come to the attention of bidders. I refer to the fact that there are presently three stations in Newhaven which it is generally agreed locally, including by Southern I believe, should be reduced to one with the permanent closure of Newhaven Marine and Newhaven Harbour, and the significant enhancement of Newhaven Town, to make this into a proper bus and train interchange, with car park facilities attached. It may even be that this project need not be expensive, given the possible disposal of land at Newhaven Marine, but there is a clear need for one part of the industry to lead on this, in my view there ought to be a requirement specifically for the successful bidder to work with Network Rail to achieve the sort of transformation I refer to. It is also important for the port of Newhaven that the potential use of freight trains to move goods is not adversely affected.
5.It is important that, in considering what further steps should be taken to improve the Metro service inside London that adverse impacts are not created for the longer distance coastal services, through the over allocation of train paths to Metro services.
6.I am not clear whether this is feasible during the short franchise period referred to, but there is clearly a need to increase the capacity of East Croydon to handle more trains coming up from the Sussex coast and I would hope that the successful bidder would be able to work with Network Rail to help achieve this. That would also, as I understand it, allow the reinstatement of trains from the south coast through to Watford or beyond, services which are being curtailed at Clapham Junction because of capacity constraints on the network.
7.You may recall that I wrote to you on 1 May regarding the Thameslink programme and you replied on 22 May on that matter. I had written specifically to ask whether the Thameslink services could be extended to Lewes and Eastbourne and in your letter you noted those comments and added that significant development work had continued on the train service specification since that proposal was first produced. It is not clear to me whether or not that means that Lewes and Eastbourne would not be served by the new Thameslink franchise but it seems to me that it would be undesirable if Lewes and Eastbourne were to be excluded and I would hope that the possibility at least of such an extension could be reflected in the terms of the South Central franchise for any potential bidder.
8.I think it is very regrettable that the Sussex Route Utilisation Strategy will not, as I understand it, report until after the franchise has been awarded for South Central for the next period. I think it would be helpful to all bidders, and indeed I might say to local MPs as well, if some indication of the likely outcome of the Sussex RUS were available before the bidding process closed, if only in draft form. Perhaps you could let me know whether this would be possible or not.
9.Finally, you will not be surprised to have me comment on the issue of the potential of reinstatement of the Lewes - Uckfield railway line. I note that this is referred to in chapter 11, page 47, and I am grateful for that. It is correct that it is unlikely that the line could be reopened within the franchise period, though not absolutely impossible. It is however much more likely that significant progress will be made and that this will require the co-operation and ideally active involvement of the successful franchise bidder. I would encourage you therefore to place a requirement upon the successful bidder to provide positive engagement with the consortium of local authorities and others presently working up plans to reinstate the line, including the production of detailed timetables, which may become necessary during the franchise period, as might as other preparatory work on behalf of the relevant Train Operating Company.
|Home
Contact Norman at:
Norman Baker,
23 East Street,
Lewes,
East Sussex,
BN7 2LJ.
Tel: (01273) 480281.
Fax: (01273) 480287.
Email: info
This website has been partly paid for from the funds made available to every MP to assist them in communicating with and representing their constituents.
Printed and hosted by Pipex Communications UK Ltd, Humber Buildings, Humber Rd, Beeston, Notts, NG9 2ET. Published and promoted by Norman Baker MP, House of Commons, Westminster, London SW1A 1AA. The views expressed are those of Norman Baker, not of the service provider.
