---

Rail Timetables (Lewes)

At the outset, I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing this debate about rail services on the Brighton main line and the effect of the timetable changes on his Lewes constituents. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged the substantial investment that has gone in and benefited many towns in Sussex, where, 10 years ago, there was a shabby service provided by the 40-year-old, slam-door rolling stock to which he referred. How they rattled and bumped around the county, providing a poor service. Over these past 10 years, however, we have seen improved services and better rolling stock, as he recognised. Many of the services and the rolling stock operating in Sussex use some of the 744 new vehicles that have been on the Southern network since 2003. They are modern, air conditioned and fit for purpose for 21st century travelling. However, I equally recognise the hon. Gentleman raising an issue that he refers to as timetable padding. I acknowledge that issue as one he has followed up on a number of occasions—indeed recently, in a letter to my noble Friend the Minister of State. The hon. Gentleman referred in his letter, as he did in the debate, to the time taken to complete journeys, saying that""new…rolling-stock… ought, all other things being equal, to have reduced journey times."" But of course, all other things are not equal, because there are more trains, more passengers, greater demand and additional services that are providing a service to his constituents. Indeed, between 1998 and 2007, patronage in the Sussex route utilisation strategy area increased by some 45 per cent. That is a great success story for Government policy towards investing in what is fundamentally important in our national rail system, as well as the provision to make it safer, more effective and more efficient—additional resources and seats on those trains to meet the requirements of the travelling public. However, work has to be undertaken to manage that demand, which brings with it certain issues. I believe that the travelling public would prefer a timetable that tells them a reliable time for their arrival at the destination they want, rather than shaving two or three minutes off their journey. They want reliability and affordability. For evidence of that, I look to the major overhaul undertaken by South West Trains in December 2004, which introduced extended, not shortened, journey times, as well as features such as regular repeating service patterns. That timetable change achieved a significant improvement in punctuality, accompanied by a sharp rise in passenger satisfaction ratings. A consultation exercise was undertaken to establish what stakeholders wished to see in the new south central franchise, which is due to commence in September. Few respondents placed importance on journey time reductions. The majority commented on the things that matter to them—capacity, service reliability and passenger information—as the most important issues. They want to know that trains will arrive on time, as laid out in the timetable. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said about the timetable. There are many competing demands. The good residents of Eastbourne demand faster trains to London with fewer stops, and, as he said, there is a demand for better services for a number of stations in his constituency. There must be a balance that can meet those requirements. Many of the characteristics of today's railway tables are a feature of railway history. Large towns such as Bexhill are an example. Bexhill is located on a line that was originally built as a local route to connect the coastal towns of Kent and East Sussex, rather than as a fast route to London. As a result, it takes some 110 minutes to travel from Bexhill to Victoria. Battle, which is a much smaller town in relative terms and is barely five miles away, is located on a direct line to London Bridge, and the journey time is just 70 minutes. One of the main problems associated with the specification of faster journey times is the negative impact that they have on the network capacity. Capacity is most effectively used when all trains on the route have identical performance characteristics. Unfortunately, that does not happen, because, as I have said, there are many competing demands. The Brighton main line is a perfect example, because it is used to satisfy many requirements. There is a strong demand for express trains to such places as Gatwick airport and Brighton, but there is also a requirement to serve quieter stations such as Balcombe and Wivelsfield and the various divergent routes: East Grinstead, Redhill, Arun Valley, and the east and west coastways. All those use different rolling stock with their own particular characteristics. The combination means that no trains, even Gatwick Express trains, can be timetabled in a way that will exploit the full potential of modern high-performance rolling stock. Looking at the timetable that exists today, I think it remarkable that such great achievements have been made. I recognise that problems have been caused by the introduction of the 14 December timetable, about which I shall say more later. However, let me list some of the problems with which the train planners must grapple. There is the dedicated use of the Gatwick Express trains on platforms 13 and 14 at Victoria. There is the restrictive layout of approaches to London Bridge. There are the conflicting moves at the various flat junctions such as Battersea Park, Streatham Common and Gloucester Road, and the convergence of multiple suburban routes in the Croydon area. There is also the two-track railway between Three Bridges and Brighton. The new timetable is fragile and vulnerable. While I recognise that its introduction on 14 December led to a further deterioration in the performance measurement that we normally use, that was partly due to failures in infrastructure. Rolling stock was also a problem, as was severe weather in one of the periods, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will remember. But the public performance measure for March was 91 per cent., and the April figure was 94 per cent. I do not think that that indicates a failing timetable. The timetable that has been introduced was consulted on for three years. It was not imposed. Overall, there has been a 10 per cent. increase in the number of seats available during the peak period between Victoria and Brighton. As I think the hon. Gentleman recognised, a compromise had to be reached in terms of the non-stop Gatwick Express to the capital, but also in the introduction of more seats for commuters on the Brighton main line. As for the number of complaints received by Southern trains, according to figures from the company, the number of complaints about timetable issues has been only about 5 per cent. of the total number. I recognise that there are rolling-stock issues, but I am pleased to be able to inform the House that 15 of the 17 units of the class 442s are now in service and are being utilised on the routes. There have also been staff training issues, which have now been addressed, and that, too, will help in the provision of the service. In the last three weeks, in recognition of issues raised by Members and others, some adjustment has been made to create an additional Brighton to London Bridge service and to amend the timings of nine services to improve the resilience of the timetable. I will investigate the issue of the cutback from eight-carriage to four-carriage cars and write to the hon. Gentleman, because that should not be the case. I have said that the timetable was not imposed. Question put and agreed to.