Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

SWT Petition Update (do not post reply) - Finchie (23rd Dec 2004 - 10:11:45) NOTE: Best to start another thread for comments as we'll just use this "Talkback Entry" to keep track of letters/replies/progress. Fellow Rail Travelers.... Big day today. We meet Andrew Haines (MD of SWT) for his response to our collective outrage ! As per notice at Liphook Station, I thought I'd use this thread as a "dumping ground" for all official correspondence to various parties involved, so all 324 of you know what you signed up to! So far it covers the following correspondence: a) original letter to Andrew Haines, MD of SWT Then we met Andrew on 9th Dec to run thro' it b) reply from Andrew Haines c) letter to Bramshott & Liphook Parish Council d) letter to East Hampshire District Council e) letter to Hampshire County Council f) letter to Passengers Panel g) email from Portsmouth-Waterloo Users Group f) letter to Portsmouth-Waterloo Users Group Meeting with Andrew on 23rd Dec Also Finchy (the other one) has been corresponding with our MP, James Arbuthnot, and we'll post his latest reply. Your Privacy: I know I asked for your telephone numbers - don't panic, these haven't been distributed all over the country ! The only people to get the original petition is SWT. All other copies have the phone number blanked out. Cheers, Finchie

Re: SWT Petition Update (do not post reply) - Finchie (23rd Dec 2004 - 10:26:56) Mr. Andrew Haines Managing Director South West Trains Friars Bridge Lodge 41-45 Blackfriars Road London SE1 8N 7th December 2004 Dear Mr. Haines, The new train timetable for the Waterloo/Portsmouth line: LIPHOOK We, your undersigned customers of Liphook demand an immediate response to the following questions: Your Consultation Process: Exactly how your consultation process operated, who was consulted, when they were consulted, what the results of the consultation were and why the majority of commuters had no say. Publishing the Timetable: We would like to understand why your timetable was published less than 4 weeks before the 12th December and why you believe this would have been adequate time for issues to be addressed. The Train Service: We have a number of issues with the peak-time commute: • Reduction in the number of evening peak time services • Increased length of time each journey is proposed to take in both directions • Longer waiting times at Haslemere station. • Lack of car parking facilities at alternative stations Haslemere and Petersfield, thus preventing commuters from other stations travelling there to use these services (a three year wait at Haslemere and one year wait at Petersfield) By way of example: Currently, the most reasonable service for commuters to get after the close of most business is the 17:51 from Waterloo arriving at Liphook at 18:47 with a 4 minute change at Haslemere. With the new timetable, the 17:45 arrives at Liphook at 19:11 with a 17 minute wait at Haslemere. If commuters miss the 18:15 which arrives at Liphook at 19:11, the next train to stop at Liphook is at 20:02 (Currently the 18:32 or 18:40 get us to Liphook at 19:44). We would like to understand what your plans are when it becomes clear that the 18:15 from Waterloo is continually overcrowded as it is the only remaining reasonable service. We would like to understand what your plans are to fill this void in the rush hour service. Morning Service: We also point out that the 06:44 Portsmouth to Waterloo (stopping at 7:29 at Liphook) is not an ADDITIONAL service that your organisation so kindly continues to mention, but a replacement of an existing service, the eternally late 06:49. So please do not point this out again. Increase in Season Ticket Cost: We find it wholly unacceptable that you could begin to justify an increase in the ticket cost given this level of service. While you operate this level of service we would like to know what financial compensation you will be offering us. Corrective Action: We find it wholly unacceptable that the earliest opportunity your company have stated that changes to the timetable will be in December 2005 and would like to understand how you plan to bring this forward when the new timetable is proven to be impractical. Please respond immediately to these questions and I will personally ensure that all of the undersigned will have access to your response. In anticipation, Mark Finch, A frustrated commuter Attached: • List of Aggrieved SWT Customers • Supplementary Notes Copies: Liphook Council, East Hampshire District Council, The Passenger’s Panel, Local MP, The Portsmouth to Waterloo Users Group, The Rail Passengers Committee Southern England, London Transport Users’ Committee, Transport Secretary, The Local Press

Re: SWT Petition Update (do not post reply) - Finchie (23rd Dec 2004 - 10:50:00) Supplementary Notes about letter to Mr. Haines on 7th December 2004 Talking to commuters at Liphook was enlightening. You should try it. Attached are various articles and letters from the local papers in the last few weeks. Also, below are some interesting additional points: A note about the Liphook Signatories: These are the people that get on the trains at Liphook, NOT friends and family. Over 300 people. All people we spoke to on three days, Monday 6th Dec to Wed 8th Dec at Liphook station catching 3 trains in to Waterloo (6:50, 7:17 and 7:29) into Waterloo and returning on the from Waterloo (17:51 and 16:15). I am sure we missed many. Summary of the problem: Most commuters leave work after 17:00 and like to be home before 20:00. Currently there are four trains from Waterloo to Liphook that might achieve this :- 17:20 ====> 18:23 17:51 ====> 18:47 18:15 ====> 19:13 18:40 ====> 19:44 The new time table offers only the following opportunities to arrive before 20:00 :- 17:30 ====> 18:33 18:15 ====> 19:11 Given that most commuters will probably not be able to reach Waterloo before 17:30 this is going to make the 18:15 a very crowded train as it will be the only option after 17:30 where there used to be three options. This will be followed by three different ways to arrive at Liphook at 20:02 giving those of us with small children little chance of seeing them on a weekday evening. Size of Liphook Station: We believe you are categorising Liphook as small which it is not. Your own statistics show that out of all the Class B station (medium to small), in terms of revenue generation for SWT Liphook is very marginally second to Alton. Note the frequency of evening service to Alton: Depart Waterloo: 17:00 17:25 17:55 18:25 18:53 Arrive Alton: 18:13 18:32 19:04 19:34 20:06 Compare this to the above Liphook service. Clearly, based on your revenue figures this is out of kilter. Dependency of Liphook on the Liphook-Bordon Bus Service: Liphook is not a station that is just used during rush hour, but a key station due to the Liphook-Bordon bus link that is used throughout the day. Additional Points: Those with shorter daily journeys, such as Liphook to Godalming or Liss to Milford, face, because of the change at Haslemere, a near doubling of journey times. On a Saturday a nurse travelling from Godalming has an extra hour wait. There are a large number of people who have child care, all badly impacted with the later evening service causing additional expense and inconvenience. The 18:15 no longer stops at Clapham, with an example of someone having to leave work 40 minutes earlier to get home at the same time as usual. The disabled, who currently face well documented difficulties at stations such as Liphook, will now face not only a ten minute wait at Haslemere but a change of platform (over the bridge to platform 2) as well. Many people have pointed out that their moral will be severely affected. This is the level of our frustration. Many people have pointed out that one of the reasons that they moved to Liphook was that it was a reasonable one hour commute. This is no longer the case and interestingly they pointed out that they expect the value of their houses to fall, due to the reduced demand for houses here. The farcical situation with extending the Liphook Platform. The Strategic Rail Authority really ought to do their research before deciding on how much to invest in extending platforms and you really should work closer together. I hear “it is not an SWT problem” but IT IS. You cannot load trains quickly enough because you can only load 5 carriages out of 10 during peak hours, so you have to have longer waiting times at platforms. Solve the problems – don’t work around them. In Conclusion At minimum, in the short term, we would like 2 more additional services added to the evening commute service to Liphook. There are options, such as fast trains stopping at one extra station, Liphook. An assurance that if a slow train is cancelled, the fast trains will be forced to stop at Liphook, otherwise the wait at Haslemere will be unacceptable, particularly stressful for females late at night. In the medium term, we appreciate you need to see how the new timetable beds down in the New Year, but we need to understand how specific issues that arise will be addressed. In the long term, we would like to see a huge change in attitude from SWT. More focus on providing a basic level of train frequency. More support for your employees on the ground having to deal with appalling situations. A better way for you to get this kind of feedback. I do not believe that “Meet the Mangers” is effective and I do not believe that they have executive support to truly represent our frustration, without being concerned about their jobs. My personal view at the moment is that you are far too focused on measuring the wrong thing. Before you can even think about punctuality, you need to provide a basic level of service (that is trains actually stopping at stations at a reasonable interval). You will be meeting an easy-to-achieve punctuality target to the detriment of an acceptable train service. You have unacceptably changed the parameters. An analogy Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: You need to satisfy the base level of need (i.e. trains that actually stop at stations) before worrying about higher level needs (i.e that they actually arrive on time). Thank you for listening.

Re: SWT Petition Update (do not post reply) - Finchie (23rd Dec 2004 - 11:24:51) b) Reply fromk Andrew Haines ... Dear Mr Finch Thank you for your letter of 7th December and for taking the time to run through your concerns with me on 9th December. As we agreed, we will meet again on 23rd December but I thought it might be more helpful if I replied in advance of that. Throughout the South West Trains area we consult with over 80 organisations comprising of local authorities, statutory bodies and line user group. For the December 2004 timetable change each was supplied with a CD containing the complete proposed South West Trains service, a summary document and station index. This was sent out in early April 2004 and following requests from a number of organisations for a two-week extension, responses were required to be returned to us by the end of May. This allowed us to review all the comments received about the proposed timetable and for possible changes to be evaluated during June and July. Where there was a good case for altering the timetable and the change could be made without materially affecting the overall timetable a number of changes were made. As you know, Liphook falls within East Hampshire District Councils boundaries and responses were received from them, together with Hampshire County Council and the Rail Passengers Committee for Southern England. Also consulted was the Portsmouth Line Users Association. The main complaints form those organisations was about the morning peak and following a meeting with Hampshire CC and East Hampshire representatives a stop at Liphook and Liss was added to the 0644 Portsmouth Harbour to London Waterloo. Details of the new train service have been available through the Internet and through National Rail Enquiries since early October. This was made clear in the leaflet and poster campaign to make passengers aware of the timetable change that started in late September. Production of our printed timetables can only start from the date Network Rail releases the final timetable data (early October) and the editing, printing and distribution process mean that we, along with other train operating companies are only able to deliver printed timetables to station at most 4 weeks before the service starts. With the first two days of the new timetable behind us there are few indications that any services, with the exception of the 0602 from Liphook is overcrowded, and we are looking at options to increase the number of seats on this train in the near future. Initial indications are that the 1815 London Waterloo to Fratton service has some spare seats with the balance of stops right for the 10-coach class 444 formation. The operation of an 1818 service to Haslemere has removed much of the potential for overcrowding at this time we are continuing to monitor this situation closely and should there be a particular issue with this service, then we may well be able to respond quite quickly. As I mentioned, when we met, season tickets and other peak fares are regulated. This means that the fare levels are set by the Strategic Rail Authority and the increases are effectively netted off our subsidy. Having said that there were 7 years of RPI – 1% fares increases, which means that in real terms, such fares are still considerably cheaper than in 1997. You mention a number of other points, which I believe are probably best, worked through face to face and I will be more than happy to do so when we meet again. Andrew Haines Managing Director

Re: SWT Petition Update (do not post reply) - Finchie (23rd Dec 2004 - 11:49:10) c) letter to Parish Council ... John Tough and Jim Walters Bramshott & Liphook Parish Council The Haskell Centre Midhurst Liphook Hants, GU30 7TN 13th December 2004 Dear John & Jim, Please find enclosed a petition of over 300 Liphook travellers to Andrew Haines, Managing Director of South West Trains, registering our exasperation at the new timetable and the impact on Liphook travellers. You will see in the attached letter the issues we have raised. Our most serious issue is the reduction of evening peak hour service from 4 trains to 2 trains. The first arriving at Liphook at 19:11 and the second at 20:02. We understand that you were responsible for the “consultation” process on behalf of SWT. We understand that you were aware of the new timetable from April of this year, so we would like to know how you went about consulting your residents. Even though you do not commute, you are meant to represent us. You have clearly failed to do this. We do appreciate that you lobbied to maintain the 7:29 morning service, now scheduled at 7:28, however you have made a HUGE oversight on the evening service. Had you consulted with any regular commuter this would have been blindingly obvious. Going forward, we would like to work with you to: • understand how this went wrong, • work out how we can stop it happening going forward , • agree how we can collectively re-approach SWT to ensure corrective action happens as quickly as possible. I would like to hear back from you, particularly on this last point, about re-approaching SWT. Yours in anticipation, Mark Finch

Re: SWT Petition Update (do not post reply) - Finchie (23rd Dec 2004 - 14:09:19) d), e), f), h) Are all letters along similar lines as the above with a couple of subtleties:- d) East Hampshire District Council - Why did they not put forward that Liphook is no longer a sleepy Hampshire outpost, but a growing town comparative to Alton (in commuter terms) e) same to above Hampshire County Council f) Passenger's Panel - was for information and if SWT's response was not good enough they would hear from us g) Portsmouth - Waterloo Users Group, just letting them know they had missed us !

Re: SWT Petition Update (do not post reply) - Finchie (23rd Dec 2004 - 15:08:21) And the response from our most helpful Portsmouth - Wateloo Users Group .... Dated 15the December Mark Thank you for your e-mail of 18 November 2004. Unfortunately I have been on vacation for sometime and have not had a chance to respond. Your concerns have been widely addressed at the July meeting (Liphook) and November meeting (Liss). Dr Tough of Liphook P.C. was part of a delegation to London to make representation. This resulted in some changes. The December changes are now not subject to change until December 2005. The next meeting is on January 25th at Petersfield. All meetings are advertised at rail stations including Liphook. Regards Brian Keefe

Re: SWT Petition Update (do not post reply) - Finchy (24th Dec 2004 - 11:12:13) Regarding my response from the delightful (!) James Arbuthnot . "I am very sorry you were so disappointed with my previous letter. Clearly this new timetable has caused enormous concern amongst those who live in and around Liphook, and I am writing to Andrew Haines to ask for a further meeting with him myself." Short and sweet - watch this space!! finchy (female version!)

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home