Dear Sir,  

I would like to make the following comments about some of the main points in this document:

Yours faithfully,

John K.Hayward

03-Dec-04

SRA -  Brighton Main Line - Route Utilisation Strategy

I have four major comments on this document.

Point 1: On page 3 of this SRA document, it is alleged that there is little through traffic from West Coast Main Line and West London Line stations to/from south of Clapham Jn. However, I would point out that Clapham Jn does not have any disabled access between platforms i.e. no lifts or ramps.

This will certainly be a serious inconvenience to my wife who uses the service occasionally en route to/from the Royal Free Hospital at Hampstead Heath. At present, we can join the train at Haywards Heath, which has lifts,(there are no disabled facilities at our local station of  Wivelsfield),and change trains at Kensington Olympia and Willesden High Level - at both the latter stations it is a same platform change of train with convenient connections.

I would suggest that consideration should be given to extending the service to East Croydon, which has ramps between all platforms.

The document is concerned about the effect that the Watford Junction to Brighton trains have on performance and highlights the problem of crossing movements (one an hour in each direction) from slow (local) to fast (through) lines and v.v. north of Balham, but then admits, above, that the elimination of these movements will only have 0.6% improvement in arrival times of other train services to Victoria.

Incidentally, if these crossing movements are such a problem, has any thought been given to routing these trains by the slow (local) line between Balham and Windmill Bridge Junction (north of East Croydon) or even going via the slower route via Crystal Palace?

So far as I can see, there is no mention of what will replace these trains south of Clapham Junction.

Point 2:There is no mention of what level of service Wivelsfield station will get.  At present during the off peak hours - Mondays to Fridays and all day on Saturdays, it is served by a half hourly Thameslink service between Brighton and Kings Cross/Bedford, an hourly Southern service between Brighton and Watford Jn  and another hourly Southern service between Eastbourne and Victoria.  On Sundays, the station is served by two trains an hour between Brighton or Eastbourne and Victoria, but there is no Thameslink service. In my experience,nearly all these services are well used and I am concerned that this level of service should continue in the future, under your proposals.

Point 3. I feel that there has been too much emphasis on speeding up main line services at the expense of reducing the service to smaller, but no less important, stations. I would suggest that the primary aim of the document should have been to improve the reliability of all services.

Point 4.There little or no mention of a strategy for improvements for disabled access at stations, especially those without such facilities at present. This is surprising bearing in mind the disabled access legislation which became law from 1st October,2004.

I also have several general comments on this document, as listed below: 

Page  8 para. 3.2 'From Gatwick southwards much of the route is 2 track only'!  This should, of course, be from south of Balcombe Tunnel Junction. (not Gatwick Airport).

Page 12 paras.3.3.7 and 3.3.8. In a discussion about boarding trains at Gatwick and Gatwick airport demand - there is no mention of pricing premium on Gatwick Express services, although it is eventually discussed much later in the document.

Page17.para.3.4.3. In a discussion about 'platform working at terminal stations has a significant impact on performance at London Victoria London Bridge', there is no mention of the possibility of individual platform barrier control being operated to help get trains away on time, as was done in the past.

Under the heading 'RPG Housing Growth' The impact from possible siting of new local housing close to employment and factory estates is not mentioned or discussed.

Page 32. para.7.2.1. (ML1 cont.) It states 'In the morning peak hour modelling suggests that approximately 100 people at Gatwick will board each of the 8 fast trains to London'. If this were to increase by 50%, as may bethe case under Gatwick airport's predictions for growth towards 45 million passengers per year (predicted by 2024), there would still be sufficient room on the trains for the increased loads (the load factors from Gatwick rising to 92%).'.. 'We are considering a dedicated area on the train for passengers with heavy luggage at certain times of the day, part of the train could be segregated for those passengers (along the lines of first class).'

My question is, how will this dedicated area be controlled?  First class accommodation is already regularly occupied by passengers with only standard class tickets, because of insufficient ticket checking, particularly on Southern services and especially on all services between East Croydon and London termini, and on all services after 20.00.

The document goes on to say that 'We are considering possible future uses for the class 460 fleet on the premium services to Gatwick and the coast.'

As a result of these changes, will the Gatwick Express continue as an unsubsidised franchise and will premium fares still be charged on their trains bearing in mind the existing 50% fares premium?

Page 33.(ML2) In a discussion on the option to retain 4 dedicated non stop

Victoria - Gatwick services running via slow line from Gatwick to Purley via Redhill  the document states 'Performance problems would move from north of Gatwick to Stoats Nest Junction north of (sic) Redhill.'

This latter statement should have, of course, read north of Coulsdon South which makes one wonder about the writer's knowledge of the Brighton Main Line. (See also my other comments on this subject in 3.2 above and option OSB 6 below).

The document also discusses the option of running the Gatwick Express trains into the eastern side of the station (platform 6) but, not surprisingly, the writer states that this would bring no benefits as well as insufficient capacity on the eastern side of Gatwick. I can't really understand why this alternative was even raised.

The document also states 'In the morning peak hours, when this putative service would operate, it is coincidental with the arrival of flights from America - the premium market for the airport. It is unlikely therefore that there would be much relief of overcrowding during the peak hours.'  I can't quite understand how this statement ties up with the comment in para. 3.3.1. on page 8 which states that 'There is very little Gatwick Express leisure demand towards London in the morning peak hours with commuting and business trips on Gatwick Express being almost equal'.

Page 35 of document, under option ML3, the following comment is made: 'Burgess Hill will regain through trains to Victoria, every half hour. At this stage, it has not been possible to reinstate a direct link from Hassocks to Victoria.' (See option ML 3 below). Note that there is no mention of Wivelsfield (See my Point 2 above) or Preston Park stations. Also not discussed is the effect of these proposals on connections at Three Bridges between Brighton line trains serving stations, south of Three Bridges, and trains serving Crawley/Horsham stations, etc.  Incidentally, I am also curious to know what exactly is meant by the term  'Health and education trips' (at Haywards Heath and East Grinstead).

Page 35. Recommended option ML 4.  Whilst  this document places emphasis on the speed up of main line trains by up to ten minutes (mainly by eliminating the detaching and attaching of trains at Haywards Heath), it does not explain, for example, what will happen to the existing stops on these trains at Wivelsfield (as already raised in my Point 2 above) and Plumpton.

In addition, there is no specific mention of what will happen to the train service to smaller stations in this area such as Plumpton, Cooksbridge, Glynde and Berwick, other than vague comments such as on page 42 - option C1 - 'Those lesser used stations could, for example, be served by a shuttle train at the times of the day when demand justified it (such as a train for school children).'

It does not look as though there will be much of a service for these stations by the look of it, although I note that the authors of this document  cover themselves by offering a possible crumb of comfort, as well as  passing the buck, by  stating, without much obvious enthusiasm, 'The SRA would be pleased to receive stakeholders' views on the merits of fast or slow services on the line, and principally how best to make rail an attractive competitor with road transport in this area.'

Page 36 (ML 4 continued) The document continues 'Inherent problems with reliability will be eased.' Then comes a surprising statement 'The new trains require longer time for splitting and joining - and so this proposalallows that (additional) time saving to be made. Were splitting and joining to be retained, the overall journey time would have to be made longer than it is for today's Mark 1 rolling stock'.   What an admission!   It continues 'The Rules of the Plan for the route are being revised in the light of the characteristics of the new trains.'   It is not clear what is meant by the latter comment.

The document also comments 'In addition, the front portion of the train (in the northbound direction) will no longer wait for the other portion of the train to arrive at Haywards Heath. Performance problems on one part of thenetwork will have a reduced effect on the effect on the main line and on other parts of the network.'  This is a fair comment, especially when the sometimes poor timekeeping of the up trains from Southampton is borne in mind. 

Page 36 Option ML 6. It is stated that ' The SRA has examined the possible provision of a Reading - Brighton service, as an extension of the current Reading - Gatwick service (and in addition to the trains running from Brighton westwards, to Reading).'  The document then goes on to say that infrastructure work would also be necessary to allow the Class 165/166 units to run south of Gatwick.

I am intrigued to know what 'infrastructure work' would be necessary to allow 165/166 DMUs 'to run south of Gatwick'.

Page 41. Option OSB 6. It is stated that as 'A precursor to the proposed Thameslink 2000 service, it is proposed that there be 2 trains per hour from London Bridge to Horsham, running even interval with the 2 Tonbridge and Reigate services as far as Redhill. These would call at Norwood Junction, East Croydon, Merstham, Coulsdon South, Redhill and stations to Horsham.'

Note that the stations  Merstham and Coulsdon South have been listed in the wrong order, which, again, does not fill me with any great confidence that those who produced this document, really know the Brighton Main Line. 

I would be grateful if you could kindly acknowledge the receipt of this submission. 

Thank you. 

Yours faithfully, 

John K.Hayward

 8th December 2004

John Hayward comments on this response: