• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Your suggestions for the next Southeastern franchise

Status
Not open for further replies.

telstarbox

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
5,928
Location
Wennington Crossovers
The DfT has opened a consultation on the "Future of South Eastern rail services" i.e. the next Southeastern franchise.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/future-of-south-eastern-rail-services

Possible changes include:
- Metro style carriages - more standing room and fewer seats
- Removing first class seating
- Extending HS1 from Ashford to Hastings

And possibly controversial:
To initiate a regular service to a single London Terminal
There would be a limit to the improvements that could be made to the timetable without also reducing the number of central London stations served from certain locations at particular times. An example might be for all Metro services on the north Kent (between Dartford and Charlton), Greenwich and Bexleyheath lines to terminate at Cannon Street only.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ScotGG

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2013
Messages
1,372
Sure but don't then charge people more to transfer via the DLR to Lewisham to get a train to Charing Cross. Much of London doesn't pay extra when transferring from train to tube/DLR etc but SE Metro passengers do.

As for the rest - I expect very little. They blocked a TfL takeover and claimed they weren't offering much and some then said the DfT would want to show what it could do...
 

TheDavibob

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2016
Messages
406
Reading through it, there's the odd bit of grumbling about Thameslink changing it's mind with alarming frequency:

We will need to understand from Network Rail how best to fit the Thameslink and South Eastern services together in 2018, before we can ask bidders to set out their plans to build upon the new timetable in the next franchise.

It seems a little odd how Thameslink has managed to wriggle into a position where it can, essentially, say whatever it likes with regards services and everybody else has to step in line.
 

MK Tom

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
2,421
Location
Milton Keynes
HS1 to Hastings will require either electrification of that line or introduction of bi-mode rolling stock / retro-fitting onboard power to the 395s. Curious what's proposed there.

First class on SouthEastern is a joke so there's really no loss there. The same seating in an area that's not in any way separated from the standard class accommodation is not worth paying anything for. We have a situation on SE where first class is basically a separate train that uses HS1.
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
First class on SouthEastern is a joke so there's really no loss there. The same seating in an area that's not in any way separated from the standard class accommodation is not worth paying anything for. We have a situation on SE where first class is basically a separate train that uses HS1.

It makes some sense on mainline services (and indeed I believe there was a previous passenger consultation which concluded that first class should be retained). It at least enables people to choose to pay extra to virtually guarantee a seat on longer journeys.

It makes a lot less sense on the 465/9 units which are increasingly used on metro services, and anecdotally makes overcrowding worse because passengers aren't aware that they can use first class seats on trains where it's not possible to buy a first class ticket. There's definitely a good case for stripping seats out of networkers and having 2-2 rather than the current 3-2. It's virtually impossible to seat three adults comfortably on the three abreast seating so would be no loss.

EDIT: perhaps someone with knowledge of the relevant by-laws can confirm whether my statement above regarding using first class seats in stock used on standard class-only routes is correct. The SE website simply states "there is no first class accommodation between the following stations". And lists dartford - London, metro stations. That is factually incorrect when 465/9 units crop up on these routes. Logically I believe it should be declassified on these routes.
 
Last edited:

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,200
HS1 to Hastings will require either electrification of that line or introduction of bi-mode rolling stock / retro-fitting onboard power to the 395s. Curious what's proposed there.
It's been on the cards for some time, in fact high speed marshlink was suggested before the IEP reached manufacturing stages. Fitting any alternative power supply to the 395s is not going to happen, new high speed bimodes or OLE are the only possibilities, and neither of them soon.
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,557
According to the Evening Standard, hard copy version, Chris Grayling is considering axing first class on the next Southeastern franchise to help with overcrowding.

I can't imagine it would apply to all Southeastern services but the news report doesn't make that clear. Perhaps it actually does.

Is Southeastern more overcrowded then other franchises that run trains into London and also have first class?
 
Last edited:

physics34

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
3,681
Reading through it, there's the odd bit of grumbling about Thameslink changing it's mind with alarming frequency:



It seems a little odd how Thameslink has managed to wriggle into a position where it can, essentially, say whatever it likes with regards services and everybody else has to step in line.

Well the fact that the services through the Thameslink core will get priority due to them needing to be on time is most probably the reason.
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,557
It makes some sense on mainline services (and indeed I believe there was a previous passenger consultation which concluded that first class should be retained). It at least enables people to choose to pay extra to virtually guarantee a seat on longer journeys.

It makes a lot less sense on the 465/9 units which are increasingly used on metro services, and anecdotally makes overcrowding worse because passengers aren't aware that they can use first class seats on trains where it's not possible to buy a first class ticket. There's definitely a good case for stripping seats out of networkers and having 2-2 rather than the current 3-2. It's virtually impossible to seat three adults comfortably on the three abreast seating so would be no loss.

EDIT: perhaps someone with knowledge of the relevant by-laws can confirm whether my statement above regarding using first class seats in stock used on standard class-only routes is correct. The SE website simply states "there is no first class accommodation between the following stations". And lists dartford - London, metro stations. That is factually incorrect when 465/9 units crop up on these routes. Logically I believe it should be declassified on these routes.
3+2 seating has recently been discussed on the South West franchise thread.

What is the futherst in terms of time a train gets very busy from London?
 
Last edited:

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
According to the Evening Standard, hard copy version, Chris Grayling is considering axing first class on the next Southeastern franchise to help with overcrowding.

I can't imagine it would apply to all Southeastern services but the news report doesn't make that clear. Perhaps it actually does.

Is Southeastern more overcrowded then other franchises that run trains into London and also have first class?

I cannot imagine that Mr Grayling wants to tackle "Angry of Tunbridge Wells", so I don't think it can be on all services. And no, I don't think that SE has the most crowded services (they do have the slowest services however). I wonder if this is a cheap way to ameliorate crowding, i.e. he doesn't want to purchase much new rolling stock.
 

Cletus

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2010
Messages
2,227
Location
Dover
According to the Evening Standard, hard copy version, Chris Grayling is considering axing first class on the next Southeastern franchise to help with overcrowding.

I can't imagine it would apply to all Southeastern services but the news report doesn't make that clear. Perhaps it actually does.

Is Southeastern more overcrowded then other franchises that run trains into London and also have first class?

One of the questions says
4. Would you support removing First Class seating
on the busiest routes to provide more space?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
It's an interesting read. A few things that stand out for me:

DfT said:
What changes to the fares structure would be of
benefit to you?

Making singles about half the price of returns would be brilliant, so that making non-return journeys becomes cost-effective for passengers.

How far do you support, or oppose, the
extension of High Speed services from London
St. Pancras to Hastings, Bexhill, and Rye,
where this would represent value for money to
the taxpayer?

Uh? Wouldn't that need very expensive infrastructure work at Ashford? If money is available for that work, I can think of several other places I'd rather it was spent. Just provide more frequent, fast, trains Hastings-Ashford and make sure there are good connections there. Also, if HS1 were extended to Hastings as the consultation suggests, where are the trains going to come from? Is there a spare stock of HS1 trains lying around in sidings all day, or is the DfT actually proposing to (*gasp*) buy more trains?

How far do you support, or oppose, options to
simplify the timetable?
So - not nicking ideas from TfL at all here... :) But yes, if it enables more reliable/frequent services then, go for it!

Looking to future, beyond this franchise, what,
if any, benefits do you consider there would
be for passengers from a franchise with a
different geographical boundary?

This is obviously aimed at the suggestion of transferring Hastings-Ashford to SouthEastern. But it looks to me like an open invitation for 'Give metro services to TfL' responses! I'm very tempted....
 
Last edited:

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,200
Uh? Wouldn't that need very expensive infrastructure work at Ashford? If money is available for that work, I can think of several other places I'd rather it was spent. Just provide more frequent, fast, trains Hastings-Ashford and make sure there are good connections there. Also, if HS1 were extended to Hastings as the consultation suggests, where are the trains going to come from? Is there a spare stock of HS1 trains lying around in sidings all day, or is the DfT actually proposing to (*gasp*) buy more trains?
Relatively expensive at Ashford, yes, as well as linespeed improvements and some double tracking on the rest of the route (with the option of either OLE or a Bimode order). Not sure where these mysterious fast Hastings to Ashford are coming from, the marshlink is a dire route as it stands. New trains would be required in either case.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
Any commercial guard, what's the typical % of 1st class occupied off-peak and peak times on the routes you sign?
 

zoneking

Member
Joined
3 Jul 2009
Messages
268
What SE needs is selective door operation so they can run 12 car trains on all metro routes.

They also need to sort out the delays and waits at Lewisham.
 

321over360

Member
Joined
17 Jul 2015
Messages
199
It makes some sense on mainline services (and indeed I believe there was a previous passenger consultation which concluded that first class should be retained). It at least enables people to choose to pay extra to virtually guarantee a seat on longer journeys.

It makes a lot less sense on the 465/9 units which are increasingly used on metro services, and anecdotally makes overcrowding worse because passengers aren't aware that they can use first class seats on trains where it's not possible to buy a first class ticket. There's definitely a good case for stripping seats out of networkers and having 2-2 rather than the current 3-2. It's virtually impossible to seat three adults comfortably on the three abreast seating so would be no loss.

EDIT: perhaps someone with knowledge of the relevant by-laws can confirm whether my statement above regarding using first class seats in stock used on standard class-only routes is correct. The SE website simply states "there is no first class accommodation between the following stations". And lists dartford - London, metro stations. That is factually incorrect when 465/9 units crop up on these routes. Logically I believe it should be declassified on these routes.

SE Passenger on Metro routes using 465/9s as the service stock have passengers go into First Class anyway, as staff arent going to stop them given it is a standard class only route.

With regards to making the Networkers 2+2 seating configuration, from what i recall this was attempted but is not able to be done as it actually affects the structural intergrity or something safety related with the train but i think the First Class on the 465/9s and the disability requirements being undertaken have been done in a way to counteract any issues, which means either they stay 2+3 (to remain in service) or the fleet is replaced (hopefully not with London Overgrounds 378 longitudinal seating arrangement) with higher capacity fleet with seating config like the 376s such as 6 car aventras (formed into 12 cars just for the peaks but with at least 1 toilet per unit)

RE their proposal for HS1 to Hastings via Rye, this would involve alot of work given the High Speeds from Ebbsfleet cannot get to the Marshlink line at present as they come in the wrong side of the station aside from running across Eurostar and London bound train paths as all SE Highspeed trains use P5&6 at Ashford for both directions as 1&2 are not connected to HS1, plus apparently the way the track runs, 395s would not be able to run along the Marshlink, only 375s would be able to do work it following any electrification but you could do a loop service from CHX to Hastings via Tun Wells then round the Marshlink and back to CHX via ASH INTL and Tonbridge
 

theageofthetra

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2012
Messages
3,504
SE Passenger on Metro routes using 465/9s as the service stock have passengers go into First Class anyway, as staff arent going to stop them given it is a standard class only route.

With regards to making the Networkers 2+2 seating configuration, from what i recall this was attempted but is not able to be done as it actually affects the structural intergrity or something safety related with the train but i think the First Class on the 465/9s and the disability requirements being undertaken have been done in a way to counteract any issues, which means either they stay 2+3 (to remain in service) or the fleet is replaced (hopefully not with London Overgrounds 378 longitudinal seating arrangement) with higher capacity fleet with seating config like the 376s such as 6 car aventras (formed into 12 cars just for the peaks but with at least 1 toilet per unit)

RE their proposal for HS1 to Hastings via Rye, this would involve alot of work given the High Speeds from Ebbsfleet cannot get to the Marshlink line at present as they come in the wrong side of the station aside from running across Eurostar and London bound train paths as all SE Highspeed trains use P5&6 at Ashford for both directions as 1&2 are not connected to HS1, plus apparently the way the track runs, 395s would not be able to run along the Marshlink, only 375s would be able to do work it following any electrification but you could do a loop service from CHX to Hastings via Tun Wells then round the Marshlink and back to CHX via ASH INTL and Tonbridge

I think the 2 +2 on Networkers has been discussed before and there was an issue over the weight if a carriage was fully loaded with seated and standing pax?
 

glbotu

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2012
Messages
644
Location
Oxford
What SE needs is selective door operation so they can run 12 car trains on all metro routes.

They also need to sort out the delays and waits at Lewisham.

I mean, the area around Lewisham, St John's and Hither Green must be some of the most complex timetabling in the country. 10 tracks (4 SEML, 2 Crayford, 2 Hayes, 2 Blackheath) in from the East, 6 out to Central London and its pretty much able to move from any of them to any of the others (in the direction of travel - except SEML Fast to Victoria), and trains reasonably regularly do.
 

ScotGG

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2013
Messages
1,372
What SE needs is selective door operation so they can run 12 car trains on all metro routes.

They also need to sort out the delays and waits at Lewisham.

Very true, and could mean the end of the Networkers.

A shame if so, as they have a form of SDO that could be used if regulations weren't so restrictive in the UK. It was planned to be ok in the 90s (before stock orders were cut due to the early 90s recession so 10 car instead of 12 became the maximum) but now beyond the pale?

To improve the Networkers they'd need a real internal renovation, which after 25 years is needed, and create more space around the doors. Would then be a good train for another 5-10 years.
 

telstarbox

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
5,928
Location
Wennington Crossovers
I've seen some of the Networkers have already been refurbished with new blue grab rails, a universal toilet and wheelchair area/fold-down seating - is this just a trial or will it be for the full fleet?
 

plcd1

Member
Joined
23 May 2015
Messages
788
Having read the DfT document I find it distinctly underwhelming. There has been an attempt to "nick" the simplest aspects of TfL's ideas but without any of the high cost ideas. There seems to be a heavy emphasis on boosting High Speed services which is what I expect bidders will do - nice headlines for the franchise announcement. I don't expect DfT will really go down the route simplification option as they don't have any real plans to boost frequencies. Even their ideas on train lengthening seem modest which is at odds with the likely increase in patronage off the back of large scale housing development along several of the key commuter corridors into London.

The far more interesting documents are the Kent Route Study ones from Network Rail. They set out a range of interesting options for capacity and infrastructure works. I'd argue NR's proposals are ahead of the DfT's aspirations - for example 12 car trains on all lines into C X / C St and 8 cars into Victoria (stopping services). NR also have a section on TfL's metroisation proposals and how they'd be implemented. Again these are way ahead of what the DfT are suggesting. There are also ideas for new chords near Canterbury and Ebbsfleet as well as detailed info on electifying the "Marshlink" route.

The phrase that caught my eye in the DfT consultation was about "reducing the costs of the franchise" which I expect is the key objective for the DfT despite all the other fine words. I will be astonished if anything of any great substance is brought forward into the final franchise agreement other than more High Speed trains being bought. That's in line with the general political narrative these days and will keep Tory voters in Kent happy and, if the trains are from Hitachi, offers the prospect of "UK jobs" protected headlines. Cynical moi?
 

ScotGG

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2013
Messages
1,372
I've seen some of the Networkers have already been refurbished with new blue grab rails, a universal toilet and wheelchair area/fold-down seating - is this just a trial or will it be for the full fleet?

It's a legal requirement for 2020 and will apply to all stock - and is about the most basic and cheap upgrade I think I've seen on the UK rail network.

They need far more than comprehensive work than that for another 10-15 years of service.
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
3,074
It's been on the cards for some time, in fact high speed marshlink was suggested before the IEP reached manufacturing stages. Fitting any alternative power supply to the 395s is not going to happen, new high speed bimodes or OLE are the only possibilities, and neither of them soon.

We already have a 140mph bi-mode - the IEP/AT300 - though it presumably doesn't have quite the same performance as the 395?
 

urpert

Member
Joined
1 Dec 2015
Messages
1,164
Location
Essendine or between Étaples and Rang-du-Fliers
It's a legal requirement for 2020 and will apply to all stock - and is about the most basic and cheap upgrade I think I've seen on the UK rail network.

They need far more than comprehensive work than that for another 10-15 years of service.

They also seem to be doing them incredibly slowly. I travel on Networkers daily and have only had two with the new disabled bogs so far.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,399
Location
UK
What SE needs is selective door operation so they can run 12 car trains on all metro routes.

Networkers already have SDO but it's never used. I'm not sure that running 1 into Vic is possible on a regular basis. They won't fit on the platforms and even with SDO they would foul the points. Charing Cross has 12 car limitations too. How SE could solve this is far beyond me. For 12 car operation you would need NR to rebuild lots and lots of infrastructure. They had 12 car platform extensions but they still need to rebuild London terminals.


They also need to sort out the delays and waits at Lewisham.

Such as ?

Lewisham has decent dwell times and its a very busy station. cutting down the dwells will just introduce more problems. Unless they run the junction to be completely free from any conflicting moves then you will continue to have delays.

Funny thing about Lewisham. I'm pretty much always on time there.
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
Networkers already have SDO but it's never used. I'm not sure that running 1 into Vic is possible on a regular basis. They won't fit on the platforms and even with SDO they would foul the points. Charing Cross has 12 car limitations too. How SE could solve this is far beyond me. For 12 car operation you would need NR to rebuild lots and lots of infrastructure. They had 12 car platform extensions but they still need to rebuild London terminals.




Such as ?

Lewisham has decent dwell times and its a very busy station. cutting down the dwells will just introduce more problems. Unless they run the junction to be completely free from any conflicting moves then you will continue to have delays.

Funny thing about Lewisham. I'm pretty much always on time there.

Lots of the diagrams seem to be timed for down trains (ex Charing +) to arrive up to five minutes early outside Lewisham and then be held on Tanners Hill. The up diagrams are generous and often allow a couple of minutes dwell time in the platforms. Agreed it doesn't cause as many delays as might be expected given the number of conflicting movements it handles.
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
6,340
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
Networkers already have SDO but it's never used. I'm not sure that running 1 into Vic is possible on a regular basis. They won't fit on the platforms and even with SDO they would foul the points. Charing Cross has 12 car limitations too. How SE could solve this is far beyond me. For 12 car operation you would need NR to rebuild lots and lots of infrastructure. They had 12 car platform extensions but they still need to rebuild London terminals.

Indeed - it's in the Route Study from NR, with the possibility of building out onto Hungerford Bridge for 12 car platforms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top