This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Consultation responses to "Rail passenger services in London and the south east: a new approach"'.

From:
To:
Subject:

Fwd: Comments new approach to rail passengers services in the South East
Date:
18 March 2016 16:26:41
In response to your Rail Prospectus 
Q1 Do you agree with the principle of a Partnership to better integrate the specification
 of rail passenger services across London and the South East. 
It is a pity that the published prospectus has to be responded to at TFL which means that
 politically the South East is not represented
Q2 Do you agree with the principles that the partnership will work to ? Are there any
 specific issues that have not been captured. 
The ownership of the maintenance depot is crucial to the operation of services by
 allocating units to diagrammes. If Selhurst depot is owned by TFL then the operation of
 services like the Uckfield line will suffer. ie in early privatisation days Thameslink units
 were maintained at Selhurst. The service was so poor that Thameslink built there own
 depot at Bedford.    
Q3 Do you agree with the proposed Governance arrangements. 
To increase services to to metro style frequencies on the two rail outer surburban lines
 means that the outer surburban services are slower. ie when the mayor of London
 specified 15 minute service at Sanderstead and Riddlesdown the three fast peak services
 from East Grinstead to London Bridge changed to stopping services meaning that East
 Grinstead passengers had a 14 minute longer journey time on these trains.  
Q4 What form do you propose for LEP and LA input
The local Authority and LEP input must not be waited on either side from the GLA area
 or outside the GLA area.  
Q5 Do you agree with the safe guards for transfer of inner surburban services to TFL as
 set out here. 
NO the maintenance of units both in the Southern Metro area and outside the GLA area
 throughout Southern is from Selhurst Depot and the units are inter linked and the
 splitting of lines does not make sense. 
The safeguard on retaining national fares is not strong enough. A safeguard is there for
 the present faresbut no safeguard for the use or purchase is shown. ie 
 
 and this will work the barrier at London Victoria the barriers on the undergrond system
 and the barriers at London Euston and be available at Manchester Picadilly if one had to
 use oyster style smartcard ticketing then both ease of purchase and use on the day will
 be reduced.  
No safeguard for available staff. The underground have closed ticket offices with the

 proviso that staff will be available in  the Ticket Hall. I use London Bridge underground
 frequently but have not yet seen this member of staff.  
Q6 Are there other outcomes you might expect to see achieved.
If shorter turnrounds at London termini are imposed then in times of disruption the
 service will be worse to passengers outside the GLA area as no time will be able to be
 made up at the termini this will affect outer services passengers the trains are not as
 frequent as inner services.