Cuts on the Medway Valley Line – Southeastern’s claims debunked!

The Medway Valley Line connects Tonbridge (Kent’s busiest station) to Maidstone and Strood. This is a key rail line for the local area, linking up a number of villages and towns. In the pursuit of better performance statistics and to the detriment of travellers between Kent’s regional towns, Southeastern have decided to stop the vast majority of trains from reaching Tonbridge, by turning them around at Paddock Wood (one stop short). It feels a bit like having a main line service, that only goes as far as New Cross, on account of London Bridge being a bit busy – what’s the point?

We have argued the case with Southeastern and their story keeps changing slightly. We’ve worked with our local MP to take the case to the Government minister responsible for Southeastern’s contract, and he had the following written exchange with the Rail Minister:

Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the compliance of the decision by Southeastern to curtail the majority of services on the Medway Valley Line at Paddock Wood instead of Tonbridge with Appendix 4 to Schedule 1, Schedule 1.1, Part 2, Paragraphs 11, 11.1 b i and ii of the Southeastern Emergency Measures Agreement with his Department; and if he will make a statement.

Answer: As part of COVID related timetable changes, to protect performance across the network during the pandemic and ensure key workers can continue to move across the network, some Medway Valley services now turn at Paddock Wood, to avoid interactions with Main line services and to reduce the need for unplanned skip-stopping on the Main line.

The services that were removed had an average loading of 5 passengers at Tonbridge; the change has resulted in approximately 12 minutes additional travel time for these passengers. However, the current service delivers an overall significant performance improvement for a much larger number of passengers across the network.

Now for those who do not speak parliamentese, our question was designed to assess whether Southeastern have breached their contract and whether the Rail Minister authorised this move. As you can see, this is a complete non answer, and both the minister and Southeastern make a number of claims that just do not seem to stack up. We are therefore taking the step of listing all of these claims and debunking them one by one.

1) That this decision will improve reliability or ‘protect performance’

The reliability problem is not the fault of the Medway Valley Line. If anything, it is the mainline and the difficulties in ‘congestion’ in the London Bridge area that causes disruption and delays down to Tonbridge.

A rational, logical approach would be to investigate those delays and identify the causes, work with Network Rail to resolve and perhaps build in some flexibility to the timetable. Instead Southeastern have decided that because the Medway Valley Line dares to cross the junction at Tonbridge (to reach its platform) that it is an abomination that must be curtailed. We have seen similar action on GTR with the Redhill to Tonbridge line and despite the chaos caused by GTR’s timetabling (March 2018), Southeastern have seen fit to recruit Scott Brightwell, who was GTR Operations Planning Director at the time, and given him authority over the Southeastern timetable.

Also, there is nothing to stop Southeastern using Paddock Wood to turn trains around on an ad-hoc basis when there are severe performance issues on the mainline. Inconveniencing passengers every now and again is infinitely better than inconveniencing them every day. The service works perfectly fine on Saturdays when the off-peak timetable is virtually the same and these trains travel through to Tonbridge.

2) COVID prevented a consultation

Like many train operators, Southeastern’s direct award contract contains a provision that where a timetable change will materially adversely affect people using the train for work or school, a consultation must be held. Despite having done so previously, Southeastern did no such thing for this change. Their excuse was that the pressures of the pandemic and frequently changing timetables meant that they could not facilitate a consultation. But it’s ok, they intend to hold a formal consultation. These changes came in in September. The December timetable is yet to be announced but is starting to appear on journey planners with minimal changes to the Medway Valley Line. We very much await the promised consultation, but we won’t be holding our breath.

Our view that this is a significant cop out and even with the Pandemic, Southeastern could have at least contacted us as the local rail user group and the local MPs to gather feedback. The other aspect of this is that with the new concession arrangements (rather than franchising), the Department for Transport has a vital role to play in our rail services. They commission the services and dictate to the operators what they need to run. If this is an indication of their approach, then they have some learning to do and fast.

3) Southeastern also have to take into account the effect of their changes on key workers.

Southeastern’s contract also contains a provision where key workers must be taken into account. 2020 has shown us just how important key workers are, yet we see no evidence that Southeastern have even considered this. We have identified at least one key worker whose needs have clearly not been taken into account. We have raised this with Southeastern on numerous occasions and so they are aware of it. We are sure that he is not alone.

Did Southeastern take into account any key workers or are they a victim in this quest for simplicity over passenger needs?

4) Passenger numbers are so low; nobody is really inconvenienced.

This is perhaps the most heinous of reasons and has painful echoes of GTR’s robotic approach to the Tonbridge to Redhill Line (which also impacts our key worker friend). We have varying figures being quoted to us. Scott Brightwell, now Train Services Director at Southeastern, told TLC that between 5 and 12 people used these trains on average. As we’ve read from the Government minister, 5 people use the trains that were removed. Well, which is it? How scientific is this counting?

Our view, is that anecdotally, we are not aware of any trains with fewer passengers than this and our indications are that passenger numbers on the Medway Valley Line are returning far faster than the mainline to London. Now even if by chance we happen to only hear about the busiest services, it seems pretty unrealistic that all the others are so devoid of passengers that the average numbers fall to single digits. Come on Southeastern, release the evidence and prove your claims as they seem fanciful!

This change affects people in a number of ways. For those with mobility issues or children or suitcases, you now have an additional change at Paddock Wood. Depending on your journey this may now be the 2^nd or 3^rd change you are required to make. There is a lift but we have had numerous reports of the lifts failing for extended periods of time. Therefore, you either have to walk over the footbridge (not ideal for any of these passenger groups) or take a 15-minute stroll around the outside of the station on a path that is poorly sign posted. Again, not ideal for any of these groups.

The train is now an inferior option than driving to Maidstone and so we will likely see greater car numbers and fewer passengers on the train. This has an environmental cost as well as a need for increased rail subsidies. This is a short-sighted measure.

5) This change means that skip-stopping on the mainline will be reduced

This is frankly nonsense and misdirection. We can find no example of this ever being the cause of the Medway Valley Line. The only times it has happened is when there has been significant disruption elsewhere and the Medway Valley Line happens to be impacted later on.

Overall, we are exceptionally disappointed in the way that Southeastern have conducted this change. It does not live up to the standards they have set previously, and passengers are paying the price. Their arguments do not stand up and invite scepticism. To us, this change looks like it is a done deal and that Southeastern will spin any yarn in order to justify action that they are going to take anyway. With the Department for Transport seemingly unwilling to enforce the terms they have agreed, this sets a dangerous precedent for the future of the Medway Valley line and rail services in general.

Southeastern may consider this a done deal, but we and other passengers consider this far from finished. Until Southeastern restores the service in full or can back up their claims with solid evidence, we’ll keep on fighting for the Medway Valley line and those who rely upon it.