On 11 December, Southeastern will move to a brand-new timetable. This is being billed as not just a tweaked timetable, but a root and branch review that reflects ‘demand’. Southeastern chose not to consult on this timetable, which they are normally obliged to, and the Department for Transport signed off on the lack of consultation.
TLC recently met with Southeastern’s management to discuss this timetable. Whilst it is true that discussions are ongoing and Southeastern have been keen to emphasise that they are in ‘listening mode’, it would be fair to say we have more questions than answers at this stage.
Some things are reasonably uncontroversial such as the removal of first class. Previously first class has been a hot topic with some members. Their view was that they paid for first class to guarantee a seat. Pre-pandemic, this made sense, as services were often standing room only and Network Rail said they felt the railway in our area was going to reach capacity in 2024. Now travel patterns have changed, it is less of an issue, and we feel that having more of the train available to all is a better use of the space.
Another uncontroversial point is that travel patterns have undoubtedly changed over the past couple of years. I am typically commuting twice a week compared to 5 times a week pre-pandemic, although my days change around depending on childcare and client needs! The railway has therefore seen a drop in revenue, and we are not deaf to this point. We are not opposed to change but there is a real danger of forcing the railway into a death spiral where a reduced service fails to serve passengers, leading to few people using the trains and services getting reduced again. That is not in anyone’s interest and so we want a service that is flexible, offers decent journey times and makes sense financially. This is our test for timetable changes.
Our general concerns with this timetable are as follows:
- Southeastern did not offer a consultation – It is just not good enough to bring in wholesale changes without giving users a chance to comment. Southeastern say that due to changes in the organisational structure, i.e., the Government taking over the rail industry during the pandemic, that a consultation would have delayed the timetable by a year or so. We are not convinced by this argument, and we believe that a delay would be preferable to potentially avoidable mistakes. Southeastern have told us they really value our feedback and are in listening mode, but the reality is that they have ploughed on with these changes regardless. We have highlighted several issues with the timetable but most of these changes cannot happen in time for the start of the timetable in less than a month and so we are set to have a substandard timetable until at least May 2023. It is poor of the Department for Transport to have allowed Southeastern to avoid a consultation.
- Who does this timetable really benefit? – It feels like this timetable is designed to meet the train company’s needs rather than passengers. Given the lack of consultation, Southeastern say they are using their passenger data as well as old responses to consultations, for example the 2017 franchise consultation. The world is a significantly different place from 2017, how reliable is this data? Southeastern gave us lots of detail on how the new timetable simplifies things from their end, but the only real passenger comment was that punctuality is the most important factor. Punctuality is important but we would argue that being able to get a direct train to your destination at a time that suits you is much more important than whether it runs exactly on time. On a personal note, this timetable adds at least 20 minutes to my commute each way, which is less than ideal.
Our much more specific main concerns are below:
- Orpington stops – the convention has long been that to help manage demand for parking and on board space in the Orpington area, mainline trains in the rush hour stop at Chelsfield rather than Orpington. In recent years the rail minister was the MP for Orpington and wanted to secure more rail services for his constituents. Several years later he has now moved on (elevated to the House of Lords), yet seemingly someone has found this old memo and the idea of Orpington rush hour stops is now coming to fruition. This is a potentially a mistake and may lead to overcrowding on our trains, particularly from London in the evening peak. The Chelsfield stops already attract plenty of passengers, but it is manageable. Southeastern concedes that the passenger numbers are significantly greater at Orpington but are focusing on maintaining the same calling pattern for both off peak and peak. They do not seem to have applied this elsewhere though, so this is quite frustrating and only time will tell how it pans out.
- Spacing of services – this seems a little random. For example, in Tonbridge the typical off-peak hour sees two trains to London leaving around 8 minutes apart followed by a gap of around 23 minutes. Apparently, this is partly down to the scalable timetable Southeastern are pursuing. The idea is that gaps are left in the timetable so that additional trains can be added later. Our argument would be that you have a regular, clear pattern first and then it’s more tolerable to have additional trains at odd gaps. After all, will these trains ever appear?
- Medway Valley line – The curtailment at Paddock Wood rears its ugly head again. Most services will start or terminate at Paddock Wood, adding unnecessary time on to people’s journeys and forces people into their cars. It’s a significant own goal. Yes, the junction is not friendly to this movement, and it can cause issues, but we have not seen it being significant enough to force the significant downgrade of the services. School trains still run through to Tonbridge and so why is it OK for peak hour services but not off peak? This suits the train planners but doesn’t the passenger.
- Tunbridge Wells limitations – Part of Southeastern approach is to simplify the network and remove as many tricky manoeuvres as possible. Tunbridge Wells seems to be the exception to this. The power supply problems on the Hastings line limits the number of 12 car trains that can run down south of Tunbridge Wells. Southeastern want more capacity through the station and so there are going to be lots more attachments and detachments at the station to accommodate the power supply limitations.
- Hildenborough rush hour services reconfigured – this one just confuses me. Southeastern say that the timetable is demand led but when I travel (around half past 7) is well populated and yet there is now a half hour gap there. As you can see from the images below, the existing services are quite spaced apart so bringing those closer together makes sense but instead what we have is the 07:15 made slightly later, the 07:34 removed and the 08:01 moved forward a bit. Who does this really benefit? From my point of view, I cannot easily get to the station quicker than the 07:34 and so the earlier train is no use to me. There are no buses to Hildenborough now and so your choices are either walk or drive. The 07:54 is likely to be busy leaving Hildenborough (not even considering Sevenoaks and Orpington) and then the 08:07 Cannon Street service will likely be quiet. It is almost as if Southeastern want to make the Cannon Street services so unattractive that they can justify removing them later.
Overall, I am very concerned about this timetable. I am not convinced that it has been designed on a sound foundation. To claim it is demand led but uses pre-pandemic consultation responses, questionably political requests (Orpington Stops or the long-awaited Maidstone East to Charing Cross trains), and patchy seat finder data (most of the Networkers cannot record data) feels a bit like Southeastern are winging it. The fact they are so keen to hear from us and are in ‘listening mode’, suggests they are not entirely confident in their data. I can completely understand the current timetable is not workable and that a revamp is needed but this feels quite bold and decisive from potentially shaky grounds. I very much hope I am wrong but if this is the railways plan to entice people back to the railway, it will likely fall short.