Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

FEEDBACK: Open Forum with SWT - Finchie (10th Mar 2005 - 09:33:09) Thank You to everybody that made it to last night’s “Open Forum”. Like you, I had no idea of what to expect, but was really pleased with the session. - Great turn out, over 50, everybody who said they would make it - did - I thought the tone, input and questions were absolutely spot on - thanks - James Arbuthnot, local MP, made it. We were above the terrorism bill on his priorities ! I will send a note of thanks to Andrew and his team at SWT, since I am really pleased that he suggested it and was prepared to meet us – not many MDs are prepared to directly face their customers (shareholders yes – customers no). I did forget to publicly thank Andrew last night for being responsive, yet again, and extending the 19:15 from Haslemere in June to fill some of the evening void – So a big thanks from all of us. Post meeting note: In the last few weeks John Tough (Local Parish Transport Representative) has been very proactive in working with Mike Headerly (Hampshire’s Rail Officer) and Peter Brooks (SWT Timetable development Officer) in exploring just about every possible option to fill the early evening void. The latest suggestion is for the 18:18 from Waterloo (currently terminates at Haslemere at 19:23), wait for the fast 18:30 (arriving at Haslemere at 19:25) and continue on to Liphook, Liss etc. Fingers crossed … Watch this thread for a summary and agreed actions in the next week. We will plan to do a similar follow up session late spring/early summer. Cheers, Finchie (Mark) and Finchy (Alison) PS – Anyone want to club together and buy a few cement mixers. A few station platform extensions and we could be “Miwionaires Rodney” !! And we wouldn’t have to commute :-)

Re: FEEDBACK: Open Forum with SWT - rob barnard-smith (10th Mar 2005 - 14:02:16) The Finchies, a very worthwhile evening I think...shame I couldn't stay at the close to take a beer off Andrew! I was impressed with Andrew & Rufus, and their willingness to listen & explain...so much better than exchanging off-the-cuff blackberry messages! I do, to some degree, sympathise with SWT and other TOCs, and think it is really imcumbent on all of us to demand greater commitment from the government which would make Andrew's job so much easier! I believe we would not be in this position if we had got involved in the consultation procees earlier, however what's done is done, and we need to keep up the dialogue with SWT to garner improvements to our service. Having said all that, my personal experience since Dec 2004 is of continued delays (c. 5 mins per journey on average vs the new timetable, which is all documented to Andrew!), and I remain sceptical of the recent SWT performance stats. Whilst more services would be nice, we must press SWT to get the ''existing'' trains running to schedule....e.g the 06.41 was 5 mins late into Waterloo today, with no apology/reason, vs the scheduled 63 min journey time! Mark...just bought a cement mixer cheaply on e-Bay...just need to develop a penchant for mugs of tea and then we're off!

Re: FEEDBACK: Open Forum with SWT - rob (10th Mar 2005 - 14:29:21) Finchie/y Excellent meeting. Well set up; very well managed. Thank you. Some good outcomes, too, (especially on the post-1815 evening services) though obviously still some way to go on a number of others. Thought Andrew Haines did an excellent job of making his problems our problems - though somewhat less well at making our problems his! Marvelled at the marketing ploy which focuses attention on the 10% performance improvement but completely ignores the fact that most commuter service up-trains are scheduled to take 10% longer than they used to - and there are 20% fewer of them. This is not better customer service when viewed from the customers' end of the pipe! [And the 0728 (um .... 36) excelled itself this morning by being 20 minutes late on arrival with no explanation.] But credit where credit's due. They are trying now to put right at least some of the mistakes they made with the new timetable. And they haven't ruled out trying to sort out still more. And I doubt they'd have done any of that if we hadn't had the opportunity to organise ourselves to take them to task. So many thanks again to you both - and also to Liphook.co.uk for enabling it all to happen. Rob (Wright)

Re: FEEDBACK: Open Forum with SWT - Finchie (18th Mar 2005 - 11:03:34) I didn't take any notes, so asked Network Rail just to give me a summary of the parties involved and key points. Here is Richard's comprehensive response (a bit more than the "Rail Network for Dummies"I was after !!)... All I really want to know is who we give the hardest time (oops sorry I meant "work together with") - and by the looks of it it will be the Department for Transport at the end of the year ... Cheers, Finchie ---> Network Rail A company limited by guarantee, NR was set up to take over the responsibilities of Railtrack. We are a not for dividend company (i.e. we have no shareholders), with any surplus reinvested in the network. We own the railway and undertake out Operations, Maintenance and Renewal of the network. The Operations bit refers to the signalling, track and power systems, not the trains themselves. The maintenance and renewal means that we maintain track, signalling, structures etc. and then renew them when they are life expired. We do this on the basis of 'like for like in a modern equivalent form', which means planning to replicate equivalent capacity, but taking into account new technology and changes to standards and regulations. Therefore, our funding (which is regulated by the ORR - see below) is only for this purpose and is not for enhancements or expansion of rail capacity. Although we own all stations, we don't manage most of them on a day to day basis, that is done by the train operators, who pay us lease charges. The ones we do manage are the London termini, including Waterloo and a few other big ones around the country such as Leeds and Glasgow Central. Further info: http://www.networkrail.co.uk Strategic Rail Authority Set up by the Transport Act 2000 (although it existed in 'shadow' form for a while before that) the SRA was established to give government a stronger voice in the industry. It took over the role of it's predecessor organisation OPRAF (the franchising director's office) of letting and managing rail franchises to train operators. It was also charged with decision making on the use of the limited available funding from central government for enhancements. Further info: http://www.sra.gov.uk Office of Rail Regulation ORR has been around since privatisation. Like the regulated utilities (Gas, Water etc.) ORR is an economic regulator, who monitors our compliance to licence conditions and ensures that we do not abuse our position as the monopoly supplier of rail infrastructure. ORR sets our funding in 5 yearly 'control periods' and determines how much we are allowed to charge the train operators in track and station access charges. ORR also ensures we are spending our money efficiently and economically and has set us stringent cost reduction targets. Further info: http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk South West Trains I am sure you know enough about SWT, but if you need more info, Andrew or Rufus can oblige. It is important to note that their franchise expires in early 2007, so there is no rationale for SWT to undertake capital investment schemes that don't have a very short payback. Further info: http://www.swtrains.co.uk Department for Transport The DfT will be taking over most of the role of the SRA when the new Transport Bill goes through parliament later this year. Whilst Network Rail will have some additional responsibilities, these are things like performance management. Both the franchising element and also the decision making on enhancements will be at DfT level. Further info: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_railways/documents/sectionhomepage/dft_railways_page.hcsp New trains programme As we described at the meeting, it took some time before the industry developed an appropriate mechanism to fund the necessary infrastructure enhancements to support the introduction of new trains - particularly upgrading of the electrical power supply, but also platform extensions and depot enhancements. In an ideal world, the scope of the project would have been greater and the cost would have been higher. However, the amount of money that the SRA had available at the time was simply insufficient to cover every platform extension to the maximum length - hence the situation at Liphook and some other locations. Additionally, the power supply upgrade is specified to allow replacement of all the old slam door trains - but again replicating pretty much the same capability in timetabling terms. It may be worth adding that Network Rail is currently undertaking a 'Route Utilisation Study' looking at current and future demand versus network capacity and SWT are closely involved in this exercise as are DfT and other stakeholders. The Waterloo - Woking - Guildford - Portsmouth route is an extremely important one and will be considered in some detail (although not at the micro level of school children trips for example). Whilst, as Andrew Haines said, the predominantly two-track nature of the line presents constraints on the configuration of services, I very much hope that the industry is able to respond to the present and future needs of users of the line.

Re: FEEDBACK: Open Forum with SWT - A (22nd Mar 2005 - 16:44:50) Update from south west trains website - our new friend Andrew Haines is leaving! Stagecoach Group announced today (22 March 2005) that Andrew Haines, Managing Director of South West Trains, is leaving the business to become Managing Director UK Rail at FirstGroup. Graham Eccles, Stagecoach Group Executive Director Rail, has assumed day-to-day operational responsibility for South West Trains on a temporary basis and will continue to retain his current Group role. Stagecoach Group is currently recruiting a new Managing Director for South West Trains and expects to make an announcement in the near future. Graham Eccles said: “Andrew leaves with our best wishes and we look forward to appointing a successor that will drive forward our plans for what is the UK's biggest rail franchise. I will assume day-to-day management responsibility for South West Trains. We have a first class team at South West Trains, with a number of excellent senior managers, and it will be business as usual as we continue with our major programme to introduce the new Desiro train fleet and further measures to improve our services to passengers.”

Re: FEEDBACK: Open Forum with SWT - Finchie (23rd Mar 2005 - 09:02:22) B*&%*cks. That is a shame, just as we were getting somewhere. We'll just have to continue with his replacement once Eccles appoints one !!! Cheers, Finchie

Re: FEEDBACK: Open Forum with SWT - Mark Boosey (28th Mar 2005 - 11:35:19) Has anyone else seen this week’s Messenger, the freebie paper (23rd March issue)? It seems District Councillor Adam Carew is attempting to claim that the extra trains being added is all down to his hard work when, as we know full-well, if it wasn’t for the Liphook residents (especially Mark and Alison) no changes would have been made at all. Here is part of the article which appeared on page 10… “Action by Easy Hants District Councillor Adam Carew, who is also Lib Dem Prospective Parliamentary Candidate, has resulted in Liphook getting two extra peak hour train [sic] from London Waterloo which will start in June. …. Mr Carew raised the matter at Full Council two weeks ago asking for the additional rail services and the bus link. South West Trains Managing Director Andrew Haines confirms that Liphook will get an extra service from London Waterloo”. Incredible. I’m amazed that Mr Carew thinks that he has enough power and influence that he has managed to single handedly caused SWT to add more services just by standing up in a council meeting and meekly asking if it would be at all possible for another train. The alternative is even worse which is that he knows about all the campaigning that has been going on in Liphook and decided to try and steal the credit anyway. To be fair it may just be poor reporting from the Messenger again (after all they don’t seem to check their articles for typos), however I doubt it. Should anyone wish to email Mr Carew his email can be found on this web page… http://www.libdems.org.uk/party/people/person.html?id=913 The messenger can be contacted via… http://www.messenger-online.co.uk/contactus.html

Re: FEEDBACK: Open Forum with SWT - Mark Boosey (29th Mar 2005 - 10:05:39) CORRECTION: Cllr Carew has emailed me back and to explain the article and to be fair to him it is The Messenger's sloppy reporting which is to blame for the incorrect statement - Mr Carew has never claimed to have been soley responsible for the changes despite the fact this was how the paper reported it and has already made steps to try and make sure people realise this. My apologies to Cllr Carew for suggesting he was trying to take sole credit. Copied below is the letter he has sent to The Messenger which should be printed in the next issue... He actually is a very nice bloke by the sounds of it and the Messenger owes him an apology, he has certainly helped more than one MP I'm thinking of. ----------------------------------- Dear Sir, I was very flattered if slightly bemused to be credited with gaining two extra trains for Liphook in last week's Messenger. I have indeed made very strong representations to South West Trains over the new timetable on behalf of local people and raised questions with Commercial Director Rufus Boyd at EHDC's NW Area Committee in November of last year. I am delighted that 2 extra trains are forthcoming, but I would like to point out that at no time have I ever claimed sole credit for this. This was very much a community based effort involving representations from local Councils and commuter groups not to mention a degree of flexibility from South West Trains for which we must be grateful. A great deal of hard work has gone on behind the scenes to make this happen and it is only right that everyone involved is given due credit. Although I am delighted to see these extra services in Liphook I was concerned that there was no news as to whether these extra services would link up to Whitehill, Bordon and Lindford. I gather Mr Haines of SWT has confirmed that the Whitehill-Liphook rail Link service will be adjusted to meet both of these two services. I understand that in order to do this SWT have to give Hampshire County Council 56 days notice of any change in timetable. I hope this clears things up. Many thanks. Yours Sincerely, Cllr Adam Carew - Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate, NE Hants

Re: FEEDBACK: Open Forum with SWT - Alex Cameron (29th Mar 2005 - 14:01:50) Lets hope Mr Haines does bring in that kind of customer-facing strategy to FirstGroup, as it is *desperately* needed. I travel via Paddington around 4-6 days a week using FGW Link, and the service is a spectacular failure. Profits of £46 million, leased rolling stock, minimised infrastructire costs, increasing ticket prices and hundreds of millions in governmental subsidies, and they still can't provide value for money. Interestingly, by all accounts one quarter (25%) of the UK's rail companies are technically insolvent (source: Rail Magazine, ePolitix.com). Adam sounds like a nice guy. That's a relief as i'll be voting lib dem.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home