Commuters "cannot uproot at the whim of the SRA"

12.52.21pm UTC (GMT +0000) Mon 19th Apr 2004

In a formal objection to the Strategic Rail Authority, the London Assembly Liberal Democrats have again shown their support for local campaigners fighting a proposal to slash the number of trains serving Chelsfield Station.

In their submission to the Integrated Kent Franchise consultation, the Lib Dems call on the SRA to drop plans to reduce the level of service for Chelsfield Station and to reconsider diverting trains on the Hayes Line to Cannon Street.

Lib Dem spokesperson Lynne Featherstone, who is also chair of the London Assembly transport committee, said: "The SRA is reported to have said that these proposals are reasonable because they 'only affect little-used rural stations and services during off-peak hours'.

"In fact Chelsfield is a densely-populated suburban community. Many people have bought homes there precisely because they commute to destinations along the line to London and because a frequent service operates in the morning peak. They cannot readily uproot themselves and their children at the whim of the SRA."

Ms Featherstone, who chaired a protest meeting of some 150 Chelsfield residents on 29 March, to which the SRA was invited but chose not to attend, added:

"Chelsfield residents deserve a level of service appropriate to a busy commuter station. They certainly pay enough for their season tickets!"

Duncan Borrowman, Liberal Democrat GLA Candidate for Bexley & Bromley will also be submitting a response and local councillors are meeting with the SRA this week.

The Submission from the London Assembly Liberal Democrat Group to the SRA is:

Richard Bowker Esq. 19 April 2004

Chairman and Chief Executive

Strategic Rail Authority

55 Victoria Street

London SW1H 0EU

Copy to:

Karl McCartney Esq.

Strategic Rail Authority

55 Victoria Street

London SW1H 0EU

Dear Mr Bowker

SUBMISSION TO INTEGRATED KENT FRANCHISE CONSULTATION:

LIBERAL DEMOCRAT GROUP AT THE LONDON ASSEMBLY

The Franchise: South Eastern Trains

1. The Liberal Democrat Group at the London Assembly wishes to place on record its view that the Strategic Rail Authority should allow its own publicly-owned company South Eastern Trains to operate the new franchise from early 2005. This would provide a most useful comparator against which the private train company operations could be judged. We deplore the SRA's unilateral decision not even to allow South Eastern Trains to compete for the Integrated Kent Franchise.

Chelsfield and Orpington Stations

2. The Group views with great alarm the proposals in the Train Service Specification document as they affect both Chelsfield and Orpington stations.

The information in the document, elaborated by Karl McCartney from the SRA, makes it clear that your intention is to reduce the train service calling at Chelsfield Station from between 5 and 6 trains per hour in the morning peak to 2 trains for the whole of the morning peak. This means that only two single trains will call at Chelsfield which will arrive at London between 07.00 & 09.59: i.e. one train every one and a half hours.

This appears to be based on the SRA's misconception that Chelsfield is a little-used rural station outside Greater London. In fact Chelsfield is a densely-populated suburban community within the GLA area. Most people have bought homes there precisely because they commute to destinations along the line to London every morning and because a frequent service operates in the morning peak. They cannot readily uproot themselves and their children at the whim of the Strategic Rail Authority.

Our Transport spokesperson, Lynne Featherstone, who is Chair of the London Assembly's Transport Committee, chaired a protest meeting of some 150 Chelsfield residents on 29 March, to which you and SRA personnel were invited, but chose not to attend. We were therefore able to listen at first hand to the anger and disbelief of Chelsfield passengers at the sheer lack of realism in the IKF proposals.

Residents conducted a survey of the number of passengers who caught trains that arrive in London on Friday 2 April between 0700 hours and 0959 hours. The figure for that morning was 1,049. It should be noted that on Fridays many part-time workers do not go into work, and that the schools' Easter holiday had begun. So 1,049 is a very conservative estimate of the numbers using the station in the morning peak on an ordinary weekday.

Even under the current arrangements, Chelsfield passengers find that London-bound trains arrive at their station fairly full, and that their onward journey often involves standing in crowded carriages. To attempt to cram over 1,000 passengers on to only two even more crowded trains is clearly impossible.

The effect of the IKF proposals is that the great majority of Chelsfield passengers will instead get into their cars and drive into Orpington where the service levels offer more frequency. This will create an equally impossible situation over congestion and parking in the town, and crowding on Orpington Station. Two central car parks are due to close shortly due to the construction of new developments.

Not all passengers will be able to use cars. A significant number of school pupils depend on the trains from Chelsfield Station for their journey to school.

We note Transport for London's initial responses to the IKF proposals. TfL's "overground" standard levels of train frequency in the peak of four trains per hour will not be reached for Chelsfield, which is a GLA station within the remit of Transport for London.

You are reported in the Kent local press as claiming that service reductions under the IKF proposals are reasonable because they only affect little-used rural stations and services during off-peak hours. Neither of these factors is true of Chelsfield, which is in London, but it appears that this Dr Beeching mind-set has governed the proposals as they affect Chelsfield.

We call upon the SRA to revise the IKF proposals as they affect Chelsfield station and to restore service levels to a level appropriate to a busy commuter station.

3. Hayes Station

We have received many representations from passengers at Hayes Station. The IKF franchise proposals cut the number of peak trains on the Hayes line by a third to just four trains.

All trains will divert to Cannon Street rather than half of them going into Charing Cross.

The proposed alterations would impose a significant deterioration of the quality of train service in SE London and North Kent.

In particular the intention to cease direct services to Charing Cross makes no sense since the majority of passenger demand is to that destination and not Cannon Street. This is true for all hours of the day and particularly in the evenings when services are needed for the West End theatres and entertainment. Cannon Street is dead at night once passenger demand requiring City connections has ceased, as is acknowledged by London Underground's closure of Cannon Street tube station outside business hours.

If London Bridge is to have an increased emphasis as an interchange then major investment would be needed to bring it up to required standards for passengers. Waiting rooms and improved facilities for lavatories and catering are essential.

The proposal to have only two trains per hour running via Lewisham is ludicrous and makes nonsense of the objective to provide an integrated transport service. Transport for London's investment in extending the Docklands Light Railway is devalued. Passenger use of Lewisham Station with its new connection is increasing and an increased service is needed, not a reduction.

This is in fact a very good example of the failure of the SRA to have a proper regard to the provision of an integrated public transport network for Greater London. It makes the Transport Commissioner's proposals for a London Regional Rail Authority all the more timely and necessary.

Yours sincerely,

Lord Tope CBE, Group Leader

Baroness Hamwee, Chair of the London Assembly

Lynne Featherstone, Chair of the Assembly Transport Committee

Mike Tuffrey, Chair of the Assembly Economic & Social Development Committee